937A 
T>(p7 


UC-NRLF 


III  INI 


B    3    S4b    S3fl 


THE  DEYELOEMENT  QF I01IN  DRYC 


THESIS    SUBMITTED    TO    THE     FACULTY    OF    THE    DEPARTMENT    OF 
LITERATURE,  SCIENCE,  AND  THE  ARTS  OF  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF     MICHIGAN,     FOR    THE    DEGREE    OF 
DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


inted  from  the  I  of  the  Mod  i 

..-/.,  XXII,  1] 


The  Modern  Language  Association  of 
J  90  7 


THE  DEVELOPMENT  OF  JOHN  DRYDEN  S 

LITERARY  CRITICISM 


BY 

WM.    E.   KOJ1N 


■       of  the  Mo- 1 
XXJI,  1] 


l 

190  7 


>PMENT  OF  JOHN   DRYgEN'S 
LITER  A  It  V    CRITICISM. 

RODUCTION. 

I. 

Fr<  mi  1 1  ■  ' 

forth  widely  divergent  opinions.    Written,  as  many  of  tl 

,  in  the  heat  of  literary  conflict,  they  served  during 
their  author's  life,  on  the  one  hand,  as  a  statement  of  faith 
t<>  l>e  expounded  and  defended,  on  the  other,  as    a  series 

inerable  points  of  attack.     And  even  since  they  h 
held  .<iong  English   critical   works — at 

first   ns    authoritative    judgments    and    later    as    historical 
documents   of  the   very   first   importance — there    I 
no  orthodox  view  as  to  their  nature  or  value.     Some  histo- 
rians have  always  been  led  by  Dryden's  popular,  rambling 

to  deny  them  solid  worth ;  others  have  found  in  them  a 
vitality,  a  genuine  insight,  worth  more  than  logic.  Accord- 
ing to  Dean  Swift  they  were  "merely  writ  at  first 
filling,  to  raise  the  author's  .price  a  shilling;"1  Doctor 
.,  on  the  contrary,  speaks  of  them  as  "the  criticism 
of  a  poet ;  not  a  dull  collection  of  theorems,  nor  a  rude 
detection  of  faults,  which  perhaps  the  censor  was  not  able 
to  have  committed;  but  a  gay  and  vigorous  dissert? it  ion, 
where  delight  is  mingled  with  instruction."2 

difference  of  opinion  has  perpetuated  itself  among 
mod-  On    the   one   hand    we   have   Proti 


lembered  that  the  relations  between  Dryden  and  Swift 
sincerity  of  this  criticism  under  suspicion. 
s  of  the  Poets,  ed.  Arthur  Waugh,  London,  1896  ;  II,  207, 
56 


JOHN  dryden's  literary  .critics  57 

I  Saintsbury,  in    his  History  of  Criticism,1  taking  his  stand 
I  squarely   with  Doctor  Johnson.     After  giving   Dryden  an 
amount  c  I  ion  which  makes  him  stand  out  as  a  giant 

among  his  con  temporaries,  this  historian  concludes  his 
analysis    by    placing   Dryden'  'on  that  shelf — 

no  capacious   one — reserved    for   the  best  criticism  of 
world."     And  the  virtue  upon  which  ; ate  is  I 

is  superiority  to  rules,  to  conventions.  Here,  at  last,  thinks 
Saintsbury,  came  a  critic  who  could  take  a  book  in  hand 
and  ask,  not,  Ought  I  to  like  this?  but,  Do  I  like  it? 
And  if  a  book  had  nature,  variety,  individi  it  gave 

delight,  he  would  not  be  "  connoisseured  "  out  of  hu  opinion 
of  it  by  all  the  scholars  in  Christendom.  Here  wa 
genuine,  unspoiled  Englishman  hardy  enough  to  establish 
"  the  English  fashion  of  criticizing,  as  Shakespeare  did  the 
English  fashion  of  dramatizing — the  fashion  of  aiming 
delight,  at  truth,  at  justice,  at  nature,  at  poetry,  and  letting 
the  rules  take  care  of  themselves." 

The  opinion  which  seeks  to  belittle  Dryden's  critical 
power  is  represented  by  Delius  in  his  dissertation,  Dryden 
und  Shakespeare.2  Here  Dryden  is  represented  as  caught  in 
the  meshes  of  contemporary  doctrine.  The  dictum  that  his 
appreciation  of  Shakespeare  was  merely  phrasenhajt  is 
softened  only  by  the  statement  that  an  adequate  recoguition 
of  the  great  Elizabethan  was  contrary  to  his  very  nature 
and  would  have  interfered  seriously  with  the  development 
of  his  genius. 

Such  a  diversity  of  conclusions  suggests  that- we  are  here 
dealing  with  extremely  complex  material.  A  first  reading 
of  Dryden's  criticism  is  liable  to  leave  one  in  utter  con- 
fusion.    On  one  page  he  seems  to  rise  almost  to  the  level  of 

1  Edinburgh  and  London,  1902  ;  ir,  371-89 

''Jahrbvch  der  deutsehen  Shakespeare- Gesellschafi.  vol.  IV. 


r 


n  v.  I 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  59 

problems  presented  themselves  to  Dryden  for  solution.  But 
retaining  throughout  his  judicial  character  of  editor,  he  does 
not  propose  any  general  theory  as  to  the  course  of  our 
author's  critical  development. 

In  the  two  works  which  remain  to  be  mentioned,  de- 
termined attempts  have  been  made  to  trace  some  order  in 
the  apparent  confusion  of  Dryden's  opinions  and  to  explain 
historically  the  outlines  under  which  the  heterogeneous  mass 
of  his  theory  seems  to  arrange  itself.  The  first  of  these  is 
Drydens  Theorie  des  Dramas l  by  Felix  Bobertag.  This 
author  takes  Dryden's  criticism  in  the  lump  and  analyses 
it  under  the  impression  that  it  is,  for  practical  purposes,  a 
well  defined  system.  This  system,  it  seems  to  him,  was 
roughly  sketched  in  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  and  filled 
out  in  the  other  essays.  In  one  passage  Bobertag  does 
suggest  that  Dryden's  critical  development  falls  into  two 
periods,  one  represented  by  the  Essay,  and  the  other  by  the 
preface  to  Troilus  and  Cressida :  but  this  notion  is  left  unde- 
veloped. The  great  underlying  principle  of  all  Dryden's 
criticism  Bobertag  finds  in  a  passage  of  the  preface  to 
Troilus  and  Cressida,  in  which  the  poet  is  compared  with  a 
wrestler :  Dryden  here  maintains  that,  as  is  the  case  with 
the  wrestler,  the  poet's  "  inborn  vehemence  and  force  of 
spirit  will  only  run  him  out  of  breath  the  sooner,  if  it  be 
not  supported  by  the  help  of  art."  And,  according  to 
Robertag,  this  balance  of  importance  between  "  force  of 
spirit"  and  "help  of  art"  is  established  by  the  clash  of 
English  dramatic  tradition  and  the  Gallicized  form  of  Aris- 
totelian criticism.  But  this  twofold  division  of  the  influences 
under  which  Dryden  wrote  breaks  down  in  its  author's  own 
hands.  Forced  to  add  a  new  element  to  his  scheme,  he 
proceeds  to  explain  that  when  Dryden  cast  his  first  ambitious 

1Kolbing's  Englische  Studien,  IV,  373. 


60  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

critical  work  in  the  form  of  a  dialogue  he  did  so,  not  only 
because  he  could  not  harmonize  English  tradition  and  French 
rules,  but  also  because  he  could  find  in  neither  of  them 
justification  for  the  literary  tastes  of  the  court  of  Charles  II. 
Our  historian  analyses  with  some  care  the  Essay  of  Dramatic 
Poesy  and  the  preface  to  Troilus  and  Cressida,  and  comes  to 
the  conclusion  that  Dryden's  critical  scheme  of  things  lacks 
coherence.  This  result  seems  to  him  to  have  been  inevit- 
able :  even  a  greater  genius,  in  Dryden's  position,  might 
have  failed  to  combine  satisfactorily  the  three  elements  which 
would  necessarily  have  entered  into  his  work.  Bobertag's 
analysis  of  the  forces  which  went  to  the  making  of  Dryden's 
criticism  is  of  inestimable  suggestive  value ;  but  what  one 
wants,  and  seeks  here  in  vain,  is  a  definite  tracing  of  the 
elements  of  Dryden's  criticism  to  their  sources  and  an 
attempt  to  arrange  them  in  some  meaningful  order.  So  far 
as  Bobertag's  work  is  concerned,  one  is  at  liberty  to  regard 
Dryden's  critical  theory  from  beginning  to  end  either  as  a 
tangled  mass  of  mutually  repellent  elements  or  as  a  number 
of  elements  continuously  and  evenly  intertwined  like  the 
strands  of  a  rope.1 

The  analysis  of  our  author's  critical  thinking  into  its 
constituents  is  further  developed  by  Paul  Hamelius  in  his 
work,  Die  Kritik  in  der  englischen  Literatur  des  17.  und  18. 
Jahrhunderts.2     Bobertag   discussed  two  literary  traditions, 

1  Parenthetically  it  should  be  remarked  that  Bobertag  fails  to  show  in 
just  what  feature  of  Dryden's  criticism  the  influence  of  the  court  is  dis- 
coverable ;  thus  his  threefold  division  of  influences  remains  incomplete. 
Two  of  the  forces  mentioned  are  purely  literary,  the  other  is  social,  and  no 
attempt  is  made  to  shown  what  was  the  literary,  or  theoretic,  form  taken 
on  by  the  latter,  or  social,  moment. 

In  the  same  category  with  Bobertag's  treatise  should  be  placed  Laura 
Johnson  Wy lie's  chapter  on  Dryden  in  her  volume,  Studies  in  the  Evohdion 
of  English  Criticism  (1894).  Miss  Wylie's  analysis  of  Dryden's  work  is  less 
schematic  than  Bobertag' s,  but  far  more  searching  and  accurate. 

a  Leipzig,  1897. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  61 

the  classical  and  the  English,  and  introduced  the  court  of 
Charles  II  as  a  literary  force  without  attempting  to  define 
the  nature  of  its  influence.  Hamelius,  with  a  much  wider 
reading  in  English  literature  and  much  keener  powers  of 
analysis,  divides  the  English  critics  of  Dryden's  time  into 
four  schools  :  the  neoclassic,  the  rationalistic,  the  romantic, 
and  the  moralistic.1  And  among  the  representatives  of  these 
four  schools  he  represents  Dryden  as  the  great  compromiser. 
It  was  not  until  the  eighteenth  century  that  English  criti- 
cism became  crystallized  ;  the  seventeenth  century  was  a 
time  of  preparation.  Amidst  the  confused  moving  and 
shaping  of  things  it  is  but  natural  that  Dryden,  a  man  of 
marvellously  versatile  and  comprehensive  mind,  should  have 
embodied  in  his  work  all  the  elements  that  went  to  make  up 
the  national  criticism  of  his  period.  This  is  sufficient  to 
account  for  all  his  evident  inconsistencies.  In  the  words 
of  Hamelius,  "  Der  ausserordentliche  Wechsel  in  seinen 
Ansichten  muss  teilweise  daraus  erklart  werden,  dass  er 
weder  in  seiner  eigenen  Geistesanlage,  noch  im  Geschmacke 
seiner  Zeit  eine  feste  Kichtschnur  hatte,  so  dass  er  sich  von 
persohnlichen  und  parteiischen  Neigungen,  sowie  von  dem 
Wunsche,  das  Wohlwollen  adeliger  Herren  zu  erwerben, 
oder  einen  verhassten  Gegner  zu  verspotten,  leiten  liess."  2 

This  examination  of  Dryden's  critical  theory  is  the  most 
satisfactory  that  I  have  come  upon.  Three  of  the  critical 
systems  described, — all  except  that  designated  as  moral- 
istic,— contributed  important  elements  to  his  work.  And  it 
is  to  be  noticed  especially  that  Hamelius  connected  the 
influence  of  the  court  very  definitely  with  the  theory  of 
the  heroic  drama  and  its  accompanying  lack  of  appreciation 
for  Shakespeare.     Here  we  have,  it  must  be  confessed,  the 

1  We  owe  to  Hamelius  a  careful  distinction  between  neoclassicism  and 
English  rationalism. 

2  P.  63. 


V 


62  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

main  features  of  Dryden's  criticism  clearly  defined.  But 
when  we  come  to  search  for  a  principle  of  order  among  these 
antagonistic  elements,  the  result  is  negative.  Bobertag, 
apparently,  never  conceived  the  possibility  of  such  a  princi- 
ple :  Hamelius  did  conceive  the  notion  of  its  possibility, 
but,  having  searched  for,  and  failed  to  find,  the  principle,  he 
denies  its  existence.  After  stating  that  Dryden  belongs  to 
no  critical  school,  he  continues  :  "  Er  gehort  vielmehr  nach 
einander  zu  alien,  da  er  alle  der  Reihe  nach  bekampft  und 
verteidigt.  Umsonst  haben  wir  versucht  einen  regelmassigen 
Uebergang  von  einer  zur  anderen  wahrzunehmen  :  es  gibt 
weder  einen  historischen,  noch  einen  logischen  Zusammen- 
hang  zwischen  seinen  Ansichten."  l 

The  results  achieved  by  the  authors  whose  works  we  have 
reviewed  may  be  summed  up  as  follows :  certain  of  them, 
each  paying  almost  exclusive  attention  to  some  one  feature 
of  Dryden's  critical  work,  have  arrived  at  radically  variant 
conclusions  as  to  the  value  and  significance  of  his  contribu- 
tion to  critical  literature ;  others,  working  more  fundamentally, 
have  analysed  his  theory  into  its  several  elements,  and  have 
connected  these  with  the  general  tendencies  of  the  life  and 
thought  of  the  seventeenth  century.  It  is  the  purpose  of 
the  present  study  to  take  up  the  discussion  of  Dryden's 
criticism  where  these  latter  have  laid  it  down. 


II. 

The  natural  point  of  departure  for  the  following  discus- 
sion is  furnished  by  the  statement  of  Hamelius  that  there 
is  to  be  found  neither  a  historical  nor  a  logical  connection 
between  Dryden's  various  contradictory  views  on  questions 
of  literary  theory.    It  is  true,  as  I  have  already  had  occasion 

1  P.  63. 


JOHN    DEYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  63 

to  remark,  that  Dryden's  criticism,  taken  in  the  mass,  is  so 
heterogeneous  that  it  is  easy  to  understand  how  one  might 
come  to  conclude  that  there  is  no  connecting  thread  running 
through  it.  The  reasons  for  this  apparent  illogicality  are  not 
far  to  seek  :  one  has  merely  to  consider  Dryden's  character, 
the  nature  of  the  period  in  which  he  lived,  and  his  relations 
with  the  controling  spirits  of  this  period.  Dry  den  was  a  , 
man  of  the  world,  preeminently  endowed  with  a  genius 
for  being  "all  things  to  all  men."  In  the  scientific  and 
philosophical  circles  of  the  Royal  Society,  among  the  wits 
of  the  coffee-house,  with  the  lords  and  ladies  of  the  court, 
in  correspondence  with  the  most  learned  and  highest  placed 
in  the  land,  everywhere  and  in  all  manners  of  discourse, 
his  fine  intellectual  urbanity  won  its  way.  In  politicsA 
philosophy,  and  art,  as  well  as  in  religion,  he  seemed  pre-| 
destined  by  nature  to  become  a  supreme  conformist. 

For  a  man  of  this  type  the  second  half  of  the  seventeenth 
century  was,  from  one  point  of  view,  peculiarly  dangerous : 
its  entire  atmosphere  seemed  calculated  to  jeopardize  his 
intellectual  integrity.  Of  one  feature  of  his  situation  Dryden 
was  himself  painfully  conscious ;  in  the  prologue  to  Aureng- 
zebe  he  wrote : 

"  Let  him  retire,  between  two  ages  cast, 
The  first  of  this,  the  hindmost  of  the  last." 

He  was  drawn  one  way  by  the  age  of  romanticism,  another, 
by  the  age  of  reason.  His  early  associations  and  natural 
inclinations  assimilated  him  to  the  Elizabethans ;  the  asso- 
ciations of  his  later  life  drew  him  toward  the  classicists. 
But  his  intellectual  life  was  complicated  even  more  by  the 
fact  that  in  his  day,  in  literature  as  well  as  in  politics  and 
religion,  numerous  factions  were  battling  for  the  supremacy. 
Controversialist  tho  he  was,  Dryden  was  exactly  the  sort 
of  man  to  see  things  from  all  angles,  to  detect,  and  syinpa- 


64  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

thizc  with,  a  certain  amount  of  truth  in  the  contentions  of 
each  of  the  contending  parties. 

Under  certain  conceivable  circumstances,  it  is  true,  we 
might  imagine  even  a  man  like  Dryden,  wide-minded  and 
readily  moulded,  living,  even  in  times  of  greatest  unrest,  an 
even  and  regular  intellectual  life.  Bobertag  ventures  the 
opinion  that  if  Lessing  had  achieved  a  literary  and  social 
success  comparable  with  Dryden's,  he  would  not  have  re- 
mained the  implacable  reformer  that  we  know  him.  On  the 
other  hand,  we  can  figure  to  ourselves  what  would  have 
been  the  result  had  Dryden  been  born  into  a  world  which 
could  have  given  him  a  single,  simple  ideal,  and  then, 
laboring  always  in  one  direction,  had  never  had  occasion 
to  change  his  allegiance;  no  doubt  he  would,  under  these 
circumstances,  have  escaped  the  chief  part  of  the  blame 
heaped  upon  him  by  some  of  his  biographers.1  Even  sup- 
posing him  successful  and  popular,  had  success  been  per- 
manent, one  can  imagine  his  development  quite  different 
from  what  it  actually  was.  Imagine  him,  for  example,  like 
Congreve,  above  the  necessity  of  writing  for  a  living,  or, 
like  Addison,  always  the  poet  of  a  strong  and  popular 
party ;  under  such  circumstances,  again,  his  evolution  would 
have  been  evenly  logical,  and  the  inconsistencies  of  his 
theory  would  not  have  become  puzzles  for  modern  histo- 
rians. 

But  the  course  of  Dryden's  life  was  diametrically  opposed 
to  all  that  we  have  been  imagining.  Not  only  did  this 
versatile  poet  live  at  a  time  when  the  intellectual,  religious, 
and  political  worlds  were  divided  by  sharply  contesting 
factions,  but  within  the  forty  years  of  his  activity  he  past 
thro    three    crises,    from    each    of    which    a    new    faction 


1  Suppose,  for  example,  that  he  had  been  a  young  man  at  the  beginning, 
instead  of  at  the  end,  of  the  Puritan  revolution  :  might  not  his  career  have 
resembled  that  of  Milton  ? 


JOHN   DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM. 


16 


emerged  victorious  with  new  policies  and  new  creeds.  The 
expression  "past  thro"..  I  use  deliberately.  Dryden  was 
not  in  a  position  to  stand  aloof  and  watch  untroubled 
the  conflict  of  parties  and  opinions.  Except  during  the  last  i 
ten  years  of  his  life  and  for  a  short  period  between  1675  \ 
and  1680,  he  felt  obliged  to  place  himself  in  the  service  of 
whatever  party  happened  to  be  in  power.  And  he  rendered 
no  half-hearted  service.  With  his  urbanity,  his  genius  for 
quick  sympathy  and  ready  conformity,  when  once  he  had 
adopted  the  cause  of  a  party  or  sect,  that  party  or  sect 
became  a  part  of  himself;  he  let  by-gones  be  by-gones, 
loved  those  he  had  formerly  hated  and  hated  those  he  had 
formerly  loved.  It  is  easy  to  understand  how  a  man  like 
this,  writing  under  his  particular  circumstances,  came  to 
produce  criticism  too  diverse  in  character  to  exhibit  any 
easily  discovered  principle  of  development. 

But  even  if  Dryden's  environment  was  too  unstable,  and 
his  adjustment  to  that  environment  too  immediate,  to  permit 
a  simple  and  logical  development  of  his  critical  theory,  the 
statement  of  Hamelius  that  his  critical  works  exhibit  no 
principle  of  growth,  still  appears,  a  priori,  extremely  im- 
probable. The  honestly  expressed  opinions  of  a  really  great 
man  would  naturally  be  organically  connected.  We  are  to 
infer,  then,  from  the  statement  of  Hamelius,  either  that 
Dryden's  views  were  falsified,  so  tampered  with  in  their 
expression  that  they  were  torn  from  their  natural  relations, 
or  that  his  intellectual  life  was  so  weak  as  not  to  be  able  to 
organize  and  vitalize  them  in  the  first  place.  The  truth 
of  this  statement  would,  therefore,  imply  either  dishonesty 
or  utter  shallowness  in  Dryden's  critical  works.  Both  of 
these  implications  are  inconsistent  with  a  true  reading 
of  Dryden's  character.  It  would  be  impossible  to  over- 
emphasize the  fact  that  Dryden  was  no  mere  turn-coat. 
Biographers  who  have  written  him  down  as  such  have  not 


66  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

taken  the  trouble  to  follow  the  subtle  workings  of  his  mind. 
With  him  changes  are  never  sudden,  or  schematic  and 
doctrinaire,  as  they  would  have  been  if  deliberately  entered 
upon.  This  is  especially  noticeable  in  the  development  of 
his  critical  theory  :  a  new  tendency  appears  first,  perhaps,  in 
a  chance  phrase;  in  the  next  essay  it  may  have  grown  into  a 
paragraph,  and  later  it  may  become  the  inspiring  theory  of 
r~an  entire  work  or  series  of  works.  His  environment,  we 
have  seen,  was  constantly  changing  :  if  he  changed  with  it, 
it  was  not  because  he  was  dishonest,  but  because  his  urbanity 
was  merely  the  social  expression  of  a  versatile  intellect 
which  made  it  easy,  even  natural,  for  him  to  adapt  himself 
to  any  belief  or  policy.  This  he  did,  inwardly,  with  a 
thoro,  largely  unconscious,  assimilation  of  the  new  view, 
and  outwardly,  with  a  naive  frankness  which,  wit1!  a 
sympathetic  student,  will  go  far  to  atone  for  lack  of  con- 
sistency. Because  his  changes  were  genuine  it  never  occurred 
to  him  to  resort  to  the  subterfuges  employed  by  the  dishonest 
and  insincere.  It  would  be  difficult  indeed  to  suppose  that 
there  is  discernible  no  law  of  development  connecting  the 
various  utterances  of  a  man  of  this  sort. 

The  following  study  is  an  attempt  to  prove  that  belief  in 
such  a  law  of  development  has  a  solid  basis  in  fact.  I  shall 
try  to  show,  first,  that  Dryden's  literary  criticism,  far  from 
being  an  inchoate  mass  of  unrelated  opinions,  divides  itself 
into  five  clearly  marked  periods ;  and,  second,  that  in  each 
of  these  periods  Dryden  wrote  just  the  sort  of  criticism  one 
would  expect  from  a  man  of  his  type  in  his  particular 
environment.  I  shall  try  to  characterize  the  criticism  of 
each  period  and  indicate  its  relations,  on  the  one  hand,  to 
our  author's  general  literary  output,  and,  on  the  other,  to  the 
main  factors  which  conditioned  .his  external  life.  The  dis- 
cussion, therefore,  divides  itself  into  five  parts  corresponding 
to  the  five  periods  of  Dryden's  critical  activity. 


JOHN   DRYDEN'S    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  67 


The  First  Period. 

The  first  period  of  Dryden's  critical  development  includes 
the  essays  written  before  the  close  of  the  year  1665.  Up 
to  this  time  Dryden  is  still  young ;  he  has  not  achieved  any 
notable  success,  has  not  become  the  literary  representative  of 
any  party.  Hence  he  has  not  settled  upon  any  theoretic 
scheme  of  things.  Naturally,  then,  the  criticism  of  this 
period  is  not  dominated  by  one  idea;  its  general  spirit  is  » 
tentative.  Dryden  is  still  free  to  develop  and  express  all 
the  feelings  of  a  young  poet's  mind.  Among  these  the  most 
characteristic  is  enthusiasm  for  great  literature,  especially 
for  the  drama  of  the  Elizabethans.  Hence  tho  this 
period  presents  no  system,  it  is,  in  a  sense,  characterized  by 
a  fr6e  utterance  of  the  romantic  spirit. 

Dryden's  first  important  piece  of  criticism  was  the  epistle 
dedicatory  to  The  Rival  Ladies  (1664).  In  this  essay 
Dryden  appears,  first  of  all,  as  the  sturdy  Englishman. 
The  English  is  a  noble  language,  and  in  his  play  he  has 
endeavored  to  distinguish  it  from  "  the  tongue  of  pedants 
and  that  of  affected  travelers."  Occasionally  he  takes  a 
fling  at  the  French ;  what  the  English  admit  of  theirs  is  but 
"the  basest  of  their  men,  the  extravagances  of  their  fashions, 
and  the  frippery  of  their  merchandise."  It  is  here  that  we 
find,  in  its  first  form,  the  celebrated  eulogy  of  Shakespeare : 
in  the  very  act  of  blaming  him  for  the  introduction  of  blank 
verse  Dryden  speaks  of  his  great  predecessor  as  the  one 
"who,  with  some  errors  not  to  be  avoided  in  that  age,  had 
undoubtedly  a  larger  soul  of  poesy  than  ever  any  other  of 
our  nation."  On  the  other  hand  Dryden  exhibits  some 
traits  of  the  rationalist.  He  would  like  a  "  more  certain 
measure  "  of  the  English  tongue,  "  as  they  have  in  France, 
where  they  have  an   academy  erected  for   that  purpose."  1 

• 

li,  5.    All  references  without  titles  are  to  Ker's  edition  of  the  essays. 


68  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

One  of  the  great  advantages  of  rime  is  that  it  "  bounds  and 
circumscribes  the  fancy.  For  imagination  in  a  poet  is  a 
faculty  so  wild  and  lawless,  that  like  an  high-ranging  spaniel, 
it  must  have  clogs  tied  to  it,  lest  it  outrun  the  judgment,"  l 
There  is  also  to  be  found  in  this  essay  an  incipient  tendency 
in  the  direction  of  the  heroic  drama,  which,  with  its  rimed 
verse,  its  artificial  standards  of  morality,  and  its  glorification 
of  the  noblesse,  is  to  become  the  characteristic  literary  enter- 
tainment of  the  court  of  Charles  II.2  First  Dryden  defends 
rime,  taking  the  ground  that  it  is  not  really  a  new  form 
among  the  English.  And  then  he  puts  the  question  :  "But 
supposing  our  countrymen  had  not  received  this  writing  till 
of  late;  shall  we  oppose  ourselves  to  the  most  polisht  and 
civilized  nations  of  Europe  ?  "  3  But  it  is  when  he  takes  up 
the  consideration  of  the  more  essential  features  of  the  drama 
that  Dryden  sounds  the  real  note  of  the  heroic  theory: 
"  But  as  the  best  medicines  may  lose  their  virtues  by  being 
ill  applied,  so  is  it  with  verse,  if  a  fit  subject  be  not  chosen 
for  it.  Neither  must  the  argument  alone,  but  the  characters 
aud  persons  be  great  and  noble."4  This  epistle,  then,  is  a 
notable  collection  of  apparently  contrary  opinions  :  love  of 
the  native  English,  respect  for  the  most  polisht  nations  of 
Europe,  praise  of  the  romantic  plays  of  Shakespeare,  and 
defense  of  neoclassic  rime  all  go  hand  in  hand. 
-  But  the  characteristic  piece  of  criticism  of  this  period  is 
the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  (1665).  In  his  dedication, 
written  in  1668  when  the  Essay  was  published,  Dryden 
makes  the  following  apology  :  "I  confess  I  find  many  things 


*i,8. 

2  Though  the  comedy  of  manners  flourished  at  this  period,  it  did  not 
reach  its  height  until  later. 

3 1,  6. 

*  I,  8.  The  significance  of  this  passage  was  pointed  out  by  George  Stuart 
Collins ;  cf.  his  dissertation,  John  Dryden,  His  Dramatic  Theory  and  Praxis, 
Leipzig,  1892,  p.  8.  * 


JOHN   DRYDEN's   LITERARY   CRITICISM.  69 

in  this  discourse  which  I  do  not  now  approve;  my  judgment 
being  a  little  altered  since  the  writing  of  it ;  but  whether 
for  the  better  or  worse,  I  know  not :  neither  indeed  is  it 
much  material  in  an  essay  where  all  I  have  said  is  prob- 
lematical." l  But  he  begins  his  note  to  the  reader :  "  The 
drift  of  the  ensuing  discourse  was  chiefly  to  vindicate  the 
honor  of  our  English  writers,  from  the  censure  of  those  who 
unjustly  prefer  the  French  before  them." 2  I  think  any 
reader  will  agree  that  Eugenius  and  Neander,  the  champions 
of  the  English  drama  in  this  battle  of  critics,  are  the 
favorites  of  the  master  of  ceremonies :  they  seem  to  wield 
their  weapons  with  an  air  of  triumph.  Therefore  the  Essay 
indicates  with  more  certainty  than  its  form  would  seem  to 
promise  the  theories  and  purposes  of  its  author. 

The  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  is,  as  has  been  indicated 
above,  in  dialog  form.  Eugenius,  Crites,  Lisideius,  and 
Neander,  seeking  in  an  excursion  on  the  Thames  to  calm 
the  feelings  induced  by  a  naval  battle  between  the  English 
and  the  Dutch,  fall  to  talk  of  literature,  and  especially  of  \_/-j 
the  relative  merits  of  ancient  and  modern  drama.  Since 
neither  Aristotle  nor  Horace  has  given  a  definition  of  a  play, 
Lisideius,  being  importuned,  suggests  one  which  is  to  serve 
as  a  basis  for  the  discussion  :  a  play  "  ought  to  be  a  just  and 
lively  image  of  human  nature,  representing  its  passions 
and  humors,  and  the  changes  of  fortune  to  which  it  is 
subject,  for  the  delight  and  instruction  of  mankind."  3 

Eugenius,  responding  on  behalf  of  the  moderns  to  an 
attack  by  Crites,  vigorously  defends  the  unorthodox  English 
manner  of  plotting  :  the  plots  of  the  ancients,  he  maintains, 
"  are  built  after  the  Italian  mode  of  houses ;  you  see  through 
them  all  at  once :  the  characters  are  indeed  imitations  of 
nature,  but  so  narrow,  as  if  they  imitated  only  an  eye  or  an 

li,  23.  *i,  27.  »i,  36. 


70  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

hand,  and  did  not  dare  to  venture  on  the  lines  of  a  face,  or 
the  proportion  of  a  body."1  That  is,  measured  by  the 
standard  of  our  definition — A  play  "  ought  to  be  a  just  and 
lively  image  of  nature  " — the  plays  of  the  Greeks  fall  short. 
The  hardihood  of  Eugenius  advances  even  to  an  attack 
on  the  unities  :  the  rule  as  to  the  unity  of  place  is  not  to  be 
found  in  Aristotle  or  Horace;  the  unity  of  time  is  not 
always  preserved  by  Terence ;  the  ancients  sometimes  com- 
mitted absurdities  in  attempting  to  observe  these  rules. 
Two  of  the  unities,  then,  lack  the  support  both  of  the 
highest  authority  and  of  esthetic  judgment. 

Neander,  defending  the  English  as  against  the  French, 
begins  by  granting  that  the  French  contrive  plots  more 
regularly  than  his  countrymen,  and  observe  the  laws  of 
comedy  and  the  decorum  of  the  stage  with  more  exactitude. 
And  yet  he  is  of  the  opinion  that  neither  English  faults 
nor  French  virtues  are  sufficient  to  give  his  opponent  any 
advantage  :  "  For  the  lively  imitation  of  nature  being  in  the 
definition  of  a  play,  those  which  best  fulfil  that  law  ought 
to  be  superior  to  others.  'Tis  true,  those  beauties  of  the 
French  poesy  are  such  as  will  raise  perfection  higher  where 
it  is,  but  are  not  sufficient  to  give  it  where  it  is  not ;  they 
are  indeed  the  beauties  of  a  statue,  but  not  of  a  man,  because 
not  animated  with  the  soul  of  poesy,  which  is  the  imitation 
of  humor  and  passions."2  Thus  the  word  "lively"  in  the 
definition  is  made  to  furnish  the  legal  defence  of  romanticism. 
Continuing  in  his  heterodoxy,  Neander  next  takes  up  the 
cause  of  English  tragi-comedy :  "A  scene  of  mirth,  mixed 
with  tragedy,  has  the  same  effect  upon  us  which  our  music 
has  betwixt  the  acts ;  and  that  we  find  a  relief  to  us  from 
the  best  plots  and  language  of  the  stage,  if  the  discourses 
have  been  long.     I  .  .  .  .  cannot  but  conclude,  to  the  honor 

1 1,  47.  2 1,  68. 


JOHN   DKYDEN'S    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  71 

of  our  nation,  that  we  have  invented,  increased,  and  perfected 
a  more  pleasant  way  of  writing  for  the  stage,  than  was  ever 
known  to  the  ancients  or  moderns  of  any  nation,  which  is 
tragi-comedy." 1  Continuing  in  the  same  strain  Neander 
finds  the  rich  variety  of  English  plots  superior  to  the 
barrenness  of  the  French.  The  evident  foundation  of  the 
argument  is  the  revolutionary  doctrine  that  plays  are  good 
according  to  the  amount  of  pleasure  they  give ;  and  the 
various  types  are  judged  by  the  actual  experience  of 
the  spectator.  The  mirror  of  nature,  rather  than  conven- 
tional standards,  contends  Neander,  should  give  law  to  the 
drama  :  "  It  is  unnatural  for  anyone  in  a  gust  of  passion  to 
speak  long  together,"  2  therefore  the  French  way  of  putting 
long  speeches  into  the  mouths  of  the  actors  is  not  to  be 
defended. 

In  the  following  passage  Neander  makes  a  determined 
attack  on  the  problem  of  romanticism:  "I  dare  boldly  affirm 
these  two  things  of  the  English  drama: — First,  that  we  have 
many  plays  of  ours  as  regular  as  any  of  theirs  (referring  to 
the  French),  and  which,  besides,  have  more  variety  of  plot 
and  characters ;  and  Secondly,  that  in  the  most  irregular 
plays  of  Shakespeare  or  Fletcher  .  .  .  there  is  a  more  mascu- 
line fancy  and  greater  spirit  in  the  writing,  than  there  is  in 
any  of  the  French."3  Dryden's  esthetic  is  not  deep  enough 
to  justify  the  form  of  the  English  drama,  but  in  the  "mascu- 
line fancy  and  greater  spirit  in  the  writing"  he  is  attempting 
to  discover  a  new  critical  principle  which  will  account  for 
the  charm  which  he  feels.  It  is  in  this  same  passage  that 
Neander  speaks  that  famous  eulogy  of  Shakespeare :  "  He 
was  the  man  who  of  all  modern,  and  perhaps  ancient  poets, 
had  the  largest  and  most  comprehensive  soul.  All  the  images 
of  nature  were  still  present  to  him,  and  he  drew  them,  not 

'1,70.  *i,  72.  »i,  78. 


72  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

laboriously,  but  luckily;  when  he  describes  anything,  you 
more  than  see  it,  you  feel  it  too."  1  A  little  farther  on, 
speaking  of  Ben  Jonson,  he  continues :  "  If  I  would  compare 
him  with  Shakespeare,  I  must  acknowledge  him  the  more 
correct  poet,  but  Shakespeare  the  greater  wit.  Shakespeare 
was  the  Homer,  or  father  of  our  dramatic  poets ;  Jonson  was 
the  Virgil,  the  pattern  of  elaborate  writing ;  I  admire  him, 
but  I  love  Shakespeare."  2  Here  we  have  in  1665  the  main 
idea  of  the  great  parallel  between  Homer  and  Virgil  which 
is  to  be  found  in  the  preface  to  the  Fables,  written  in  1700  ; 
here  it  is  abundance  of  wit,  luxuriance  of  the  creative  faculty, 
that  is  brought  in  to  justify  a  feeling  that  runs  directly 
counter  to  the  conclusions  of  formal  criticism.  The  Essay 
closes  with  an  elaborate  defense  of  riming  plays ;  which, 
like  the  dedication  of  The  Rival  Ladies,  goes  to  show  that 
Dryden  is  feeling  his  way  toward  the  heroic  ideal. 

But  as  a  whole  this  work,  in  its  method  and  spirit,  in  the 
underlying  feeling  of  its  every  part,  shows  our  author  in  the 
character  of  an  investigator  of  the  materials  of  literary 
criticism.  It  is  to  the  period  of  its  composition  that  he  re- 
ferred in  his  Discourse  Concerning  the  Original  and  Progress 
of  Satire  (1692),  addrest  to  Charles,  Earl  of  Dorset  and 
Middlesex :  "  When  I  was  myself  in  the  rudiments  of  my 
poetry,  without  name  or  reputation  in  the  world,  having 
rather  the  ambition  of  a  writer  than  the  skill ;  when  I  was 
drawing  the  outline  of  an  art,  without  any  living  master  to 
instruct  me  in  it;  an  art  which  had  been  better  praised  than 
studied  in  England,  .  .  .  when  thus,  as  I  may  say,  before  the 
use  of  the  loadstone,  or  knowledge  of  the  compass,  I  was 
sailing  in  a  vast  ocean,  without  any  other  help  than  the  pole- 
star  of  the  ancients,  and  the  rules  of  the  French  stage  among 
the  moderns ;  .  . .  yet  even  then,  I  had  the  presumption  to 

1i,  79.  »i,  82. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  73 

dedicate  to  your  lordship:  a  very  unfinished  piece,  I  must 
confess,  and  which  can  only  be  excused  by  the  little  experience 
of  the  author,  and  the  modesty  of  the  title  An  Essay."1  To 
a  young  author  of  unsettled  opinions  and  inquiring  mind  the 
intellectual  atmosphere  of  the  moment  was  not  unfavorable. 
In  1660  Dryden  wrote  an  epistle  to  an  archeological  work 
by  Walter  Charlton  in  which  he  spoke  of  the  subjection  to 
^.ristotle  as  "  the  longest  tyranny  that  ever  swayed."  This 
was  decidedly  a  period  of  scepticism,  a  time  when  old  creeds 
would  have  to  undergo  renewed  examination.  The  whole 
spirit,  scientific  and  philosophical,  of  the  period  which  coin- 
cided with  Dryden's  young  manhood  tended  to  reinforce  the 
conditions  implied  in  his  own  description  of  the  circumstances 
which  conditioned  his  early  critical  work. 

The  first  of  these  conditions  was  the  lack  in  England  of  a 
definite  critical  standard.  Ben  Jonson  had  given  vogue  to 
the  English  neoclassic  movement,  but  the  Restoration  men 
of  letters  looked  to  France  for  their  theory.  And  in  France, 
duriug  the  great  discussions  of  the  early  part  of  the  period 
of  Louis  XIV,  all  that  the  most  daring  moderns  had  been 
able  to  do  was  to  adapt  the  dicta  of  the  schools  to  the 
demands  of  the  French  stage.  French  classicism,  merely 
a  thoro-going  rationalism  of  the  French  type  fathered 
upon  Aristotle,  had  decreed  that  the  three  unities,  with  their 
accompanying  conventions,  constituted  a  code  from  which 
there  was  no  appeal.  Plays  written  according  to  the  law 
were  symmetrical,  restrained,  intelligible,  and  therefore 
beautiful ;  those  fashioned  without  due  regard  for  the  law, 
even  though  they  gave  pleasure,  were  unintelligible,  and 
therefore  monstrous.  Now  this  theory,  best  formulated  in 
France  by  Boileau,  was  already  beginning  to  dominate  Eng- 
land when  Dryden  began  his  critical  labors.    Modified  by  the 


12,  16. 


74  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

English  genius,  especially  by  English  rationalistic  philoso- 
phy,1 it  was  destined  to  obtain,  in  the  eighteenth  century, 
almost  complete  control  of  English  thinking  on  the  subject 
of  art.  Naturally  this  philosophy  could  make  nothing  of  the 
great  Elizabethans ;  during  Dryden's  youth  and  early  man- 
hood Shakespeare  was  falling  more  and  more  under  the  ban 
of  the  intellectuals. 

Into  the  arena  where  the  English  literary  tradition  was 
giving  way  before  the  advance  of  this  neoclassicism  came, 
then,  the  young  poet,  Dryden.  In  the  essays  which  we 
have  just  examined  we  have  him,  still  in  the  first  flush  of 
youth,  boldly  taking  his  stand  upon  his  literary  instincts. 
In  spite  of  the  dicta  of  the  schools  he  feels  the  spell  of  great 
literature  and  is  suspicious  of  the  critical  theory  which 
cannot  make  room  for  it.  Without  the  support  of  precedent 
or  the  aid  of  adequate  method,  but  with  a  superb  enthusiasm, 
he  is  attempting  to  give  theoretic  justification  to  what  his 
feelings  recognize  as  beautiful.  The  formal  results  of  his 
attempt  are  a  partial  clearing  away  of  the  rubbish  heaped 
upon  Aristotle,  a  resort  to  the  historical  method,2  a  widening 
of  the  theory  of  imitation,  and  a  determined  attempt  to 
judge  literature  with  reference  to  its  social  function. 

In  1667  when  our  author  revived  The  Wild  Gallant  he 
introduced  it  with  a  prolog  in  which  he  compared  his  own 

1  This  expression  1  use  rather  loosely  to  designate  English  sensationalism. 
This  kind  of  materialistic  rationalism  is  represented  by  the  tendency  to  hold 
art  down  to  the  common-sense  standards  of  ordinary  life. 

2  Of  course  I  do  not  mean  to  imply  that  Dryden  had  a  deep,  modern 
sense  of  historical  development  of  the  arts.  Now  and  then,  when  it  suited 
his  occasions,  he  explained  the  difference  between  Greek  and  Roman  art, 
between  French  and  English,  or  between  ancient  and  modern,  by  means 
of  references  to  the  social  conditions,  or  peculiarities  of  taste,  of  the  nations 
or  periods  in  question.  But  any  systematic  application  of  the  historical 
method  of  criticism  was  out  of  the  question. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  75 

evolution  with  that  of  "  some  raw  squire,  by  tender  mother 
bred."     The  innocent  squire  comes  at  length  to  town  : 

"  Where  entered  by  some  school-fellow  or  friend, 
He  grows  to  break  glass  windows  in  the  end  ; 
His  valor,  too,  which  with  the  watch  began, 
Proceeds  to  duels,  and  he  kills  his  man." 

Though  Dryden  intended  this  as  an  account  of  his  education 
in  obscenity,  it  is  capable  of  a  much  wider  application.  He 
came  to  London  with  his  fortune  aud  reputation  to  make ;  a 
Puritan  by  birth  and  early  associations,  he  naturally  did  all 
in  his  power  to  win  esteem  in  Puritan  circles ;  after  the 
Restoration  he  continued  his  efforts  more  and  more  success- 
fully with  the  new  court.  But  in  1665  there  was  still 
something  of  the  raw  squire  about  him  ;  he  was  endeavor- 
ing to  strike  in  with  the  fancy  of  town  and  court,  but  had 
as  yet  not  mastered  the  trick.  In  1667,  speaking  of  The 
Indian  Emperor,  he  said  :  "  It  is  an  irregular  piece,  if 
compared  with  many  of  Corneille's,  and,  if  I  may  make  a 
judgment  of  it,  written  with  more  flame  than  art."  1  That 
is,  in  1665,  the  time  of  the.  writing  of  the  Essay  of  Dramatic 
Poesy,  Dryden  had  not  settled  upon  his  literary  aims ;  he 
had  not  yet  brought  himself  to  defend,  and  work  within  the 
limits  of,  a  definite  literary  form.  And  on  this  account  his 
critical  genius  was  left  free  to  give  us  during  this  period 
judgments  and  appreciations  which  alone  would  mark  him 
as  the  greatest  innovator  who  has  thus  far  appeared  among 
modern  critics.2 


1  Works,  ed.  Scott  and  Saintsbury,  n,  288. 

2  Perhaps  it  is  unnecessary  to  say  that  I  do  not  attempt  to  account  satis- 
factorily for  the  nature  of  the  criticism  which  Dryden  produced  during 
any  particular  period.  The  motives  which  work  themselves  out  in  the 
mind  of  any  great  man  are  naturally  complex,  and  the  influences  to  which 
Dryden  was  subject  were  particularly  numerous  and  varied.  I  merely 
attempt  to  point  out  the  relations  of  his  criticism  to  certain  other  features 
of  his  life  and  works. 


V 


76  WM.    E.    BOHN. 


The  Second  Period. 

The  second  period  of  Dryden's  critical  activity  includes  the 
ten  years  from  1666  to  1675.  Gradually,  during  the  middle 
of  the  decade  between  1661  and  1670,  our  author  improved 
his  situation;  beginning  as  a  struggling  unknown,  he  soon 
became  the  most  popular  poet  in  England,  the  favorite  of 
court  and  play-house.  The  court  was  given  its  intellectual 
tone  by  sensual  noblemen  who  could  find  little  pleasure  in 
the  genuine  tragedy  which  bases  itself  upon  human  life  and 
emotions.  Adapting  his  works,  half  unconsciously,  to  the 
taste  of  these  men,  under  whose  influence  he  lived  and  upon 
whose  favor  he  was  dependent,  Dryden  came  naturally  to  de- 
vote himself  to  the  heroic  play.  Aud  his  talent  for  criticism 
was  turned  to  good  account  in  the  exposition  and  defense  of 
the  heroic  literary  ideal.1  This  led  naturally  to  a  rather 
mechanical  conception  of  poetry,  a  fervid  defense  of  rime, 
apologies  for  extravagance  in  character-development,  and  an 
undervaluing  of  the  work  of  the  Elizabethans. 

From  the  beginning  of  his  life  in  London  Dryden  showed 
his  tendency  to  swim  with  the  current.  Miserably  poor,2 
he  depended  for  success  on  the  notice  which  the  efforts  of  his 
pen  might  attract  in  high  places.  His  career  began  auspi- 
ciously enough.  In  1657,  when  Dryden  came  up  to  London, 
Cromwell  was  still  at  the  height  of  his  power,  and  Sir  Gil- 

xLike  most  critics,  Dryden  paid  little  attention  to  the  problems  of 
comedy.  In  addition  to  the  difficulties  presented  by  the  subject  his  neglect 
was  no  doubt  prompted  by  his  natural  dislike  of  comedy  writing :  more 
than  once  he  lamented  the  fact  that  he  was  forced  to  this  distasteful  labor. 
At  any  rate  it  is  certain  that  his  comedy  is  related  to  his  critical  theory 
only  so  far  as  it  exhibits  his  general  state  of  mind  or  throws  light  on  his 
relations  with  his  public. 

2  Saintsbury,  Life  of  Dryden,  English  Men  of  Letters  Series,  p.  10 ; 
Christy,  Memoir  of  Dryden,  Globe  edition  of  works,  p.  xx. 


JOHN   DRYDEN's   LITERARY   CRITICISM.  77 

bert  Pickering,  Dryden' s  cousin,  stood  high  in  the  Protector's 
favor.  Thus  our  author  got  near  enough  to  Cromwell  to  feel 
something  of  the  magnetism  of  his  personality.  Already 
a  Puritan  by  birth  and  training,  he  naturally  threw  himself 
into  the  glorification  of  the  Puritan  hero  and  his  cause.  There 
is  no  reason  to  doubt  that  Dryden's  eulogy  of  Cromwell  was 
a  sincere  outpouring  of  the  young  poet's  enthusiasm.  But  at 
the  very  time  when  this  poem  was  written  the  political  tide 
began  to  set  in  a  new  direction.  Weary  of  constant  unrest,  ' 
practically  all  England  began  to  look  toward  the  restoration 
of  the  house  of  Stuart  for  relief.  And  it  is  but  natural  that 
our  versatile  young  poet,  when  his  powerful  friends  began  to 
turn  royalists,  should  be  thrilled  with  the  common  feeling 
of  exultation  at  the  prospect  of  a  settled  government  and  the*^^ 
glories  of  a  new  court.  So  one  is  not  at  all  surprised  at  the 
tone  of  the  extravagant  panegyrics  with  which  he  hailed  the 
Restoration. 

Dryden's  facility  in  adapting  himself  to  changed  circum- 
stances is  shown  also  by  the  rapidity  with  wThich  he  gained 
friends  among  the  royalists.  Chief  among  his  new  intimates 
was  Sir  Robert  Howard.  Immediately  after  the  Restoration  q 
Sir  Robert  had  prefixed  to  a  volume  of  verse  an  epistle  by 
Dryden,  "  To  my  Honored  Friend,  Sir  Robert  Howard." 
In  the  epistle  which  served  as  a  dedication  of  Annus  Mira- 
bilis  (1666)  Dryden  wrote  to  Howard:  "You  have  not  only 
been  careful  of  my  fortune,  which  was  the  effect  of  your 
nobleness,  but  you  have  been  solicitous  of  my  reputation, 
which  is  that  of  your  kindness."1  In  1663  our  author 
married  Howard's  sister,  Lady  Elizabeth  Howard,  and  in 
1664  the  brothers-in-law  produced  together  The  Indian 
Queen.  All  of  this  goes  to  show  that  even  at  this  early 
period   Dryden   was,  not  entirely  without  success,  bending 

1 1,  10. 


78  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

every  effort  toward  the  attainment  of  recognition  among  the 
satellites  of  the  court. 

But  the  evidence  of  Dryden's  easy  adaptation  to  a  changed 
environment  would  not  be  complete  without  some  mention 
of  his  earlier  plays.  Almost  from  the  beginning  his  dramatic 
as  well  as  his  lyric  muse  was  brought  into  subjection  to  his 
conformist  tendency.  Tho  The  Wild  Gallant  (1663)  was 
a  dismal  failure  on  the  stage,  the  patronage  of  Lady  Castle- 
main,  mistress  to  the  king,  infused  new  life  into  our  author's 
"  condemned  and  dying  muse." *  Referring  to  this  play 
Dryden  wrote :  "  Yet  it  was  received  at  court ;  and  was 
more  than  once  the  divertisement  of  his  majesty,  by  his 
own  command ;  but  I  have  more  modesty  than  to  ascribe 
that  to  my  merit,  which  was  his  particular  act  of  grace."  2 
In  The  Rival  Ladies  (1664)  and  The  Indian  Emperor  (1665) 
Dryden  made  his  first  attempts  in  the  direction  of  the  heroic. 
And  that  these  attempts  were  conscious  efforts  to  please  the 
king  appears  from  a  number  of  Dryden's  own  statements. 
In  the  dedication  of  The  Indian  Emperor  he  wrote :  "  The 
favor  which  heroic  plays  have  lately  found  upon  our 
theaters  has  been  wholly  derived  to  them  from  the  counte- 
nance and  approbation  they  received  at  court.  The  most 
eminent  persons  for  wit  and  honor  in  the  royal  circle  having 
so  owned  them,  that  they  have  judged  no  way  so  fit  as  verse 
to  entertain  a  noble  audience,  or  express  a  noble  passion."  3 
In  his  epistle  dedicatory  to  An  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy, 
written  in  1668  when  the  Essay  was  published,  he  thus 
supported  his  argument  in  favor  of  rime :  "  The  court, 
which  is  the  best  and  surest  judge  of  writing,  has  generally 
allowed  of  verse ;  and  in  the  town  it  has  found  favorers  of 

1Cf.  Dryden's  poem,  To  the  Lady  Castlemain. 

2  Preface  to  The  Wild  Gallant,  Scott-Saintsbury,  vol.  II,  27. 

3  Scott-Saintsbury,  II,  285. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  79 

wit  and  quality."  '  Dryden  was  poor,  dependent  upon  his 
pen  for  a  livelihood ;  it  is  but  natural  that  he  should  have 
fallen  in  with  the  mode  favored  by  those  whose  approbation 
meant  success. 

Even  during  his  first  period,  then,  Dryden  was  doing  his 
utmost  to  gain  his  way  among  the  great  ones  of  the  court. 
But  the  court  was  not  yet  sure  of  its  own  tastes ;  the  norm 
of  the  heroic  play  had  not  yet  been  worked  out.  Dryden 
was,  as  yet,  unable  to  command  his  talents  to  the  best 
advantage,  to  cast  them  into  the  required  mold,  to  make 
them  respond  quickly  and  faultlessly  to  the  demands  made 
upon  them ;  hence  his  work  was  not,  during  this  early 
period,  especially  distinguished.  It  was  on  account  of  these 
facts  that  he  worked  for  full  five  years  without  a  settled 
literary  system,  and  thus  was  left  free  to  give  us  at  the 
beginning  of  his  career  criticism  so  remarkable  for  fresh 
enthusiasm  and  unconventionally.  But  early  in  the  second 
period  our  author's  efforts  to  attain  distinction  began  to  tell 
in  the  most  decisive  manner.  Already  allied  by  marriage  to 
a  noble  family,  he  was  soon  established  as  a  successful 
playwright.  About  the  year  1667  he  entered  upon  a  con- 
tract with  the  King's  Theater  :  in  return  for  three  plays  a 
year  he  was  to  receive  a  share  and  a  quarter  of  the  profits 
of  the  theater.  For  some  years,  it  appears,  his  profits 
from  this  source  amounted  to  two  or  three  hundred  pounds 
annually.  In  1670  he  was  appointed  by  the  king  to  the 
posts  of  Poet-laureate  and  Historiographer  Royal  with  a 
salary  of  two  hundred  pounds  a  year  and  arrears  amounting 
to  four  hundred  pounds. 

Besides  this  official  recognition  evidences  of  favor  with  the 
court  are  abundant.  Secret  Love,  or  the  Maiden  Queen  (1667) 
Charles  graced  with  the  title  of  "  his  play."  2    From  numerous 

1 1,  24.  2  Scott-Saintsbury,  II,  417. 


& 


80  WM.    E.    BOIJN. 

suggestions  in  the  prefaces,  dedications,  etc.,  one  gathers  that 
the  king  took  a  strong  interest  in  Dryden's  work,  discussed 
plans  with  him,  and  honored  hini  with  advice.  As  to  our 
author's  social  position  in  general,  Scott's  statement  seems  to 
be  quite  within  the  limits  of  fact:  "Whether  we  judge  of 
the  rank  which  Dryden  held  in  society  by  the  splendor  of  his 
titled  and  powerful  friends,  or  by  his  connections  among  men 
of  genius,  we  must  consider  him  as  occupying  at  this  time, 
as  high  a  station  in  the  foremost  circle  as  literary  reputation 
could  gain  for  its  owner.  Independent  of  the  notice  with 
which  he  was  honored  by  Charles  himself,  the  poet  num- 
bered among  his  friends  most  of  the  distinguished  nobility."  * 
Evidence  of  Dryden's  subservience  to  the  court  is  abundant. 
Tyrannic  Love  was  written  at  the  request  of  "  some  persons  of 
honor  ; "  2  Amhoyna  was  merely  a  piece  of  political  service. 
In  The  Indian  Emperor  there  occur  numerous  discussions  of 
royal  authority,  all  of  which  turn  in  favor  of  absolutism  ;  in 
The  Conquest  of  Granada,  after  Almanzor  has  been  repre- 
sented as  a  being  quite  apart  from  ordinary  flesh  and  blood 
he  becomes  immediately  comprehensible  when  it  is  explained 
that  he  is  of  royal  lineage.  That  the  heroic  drama  was  de- 
veloped in  response  to  the  expressed  taste  of  Charles  II  has 
already  been  made  evident.  In  the  Defense  of  the  Epilog 
(1672)  Dryden  referred  not  only  the  heroic  drama  but  the 
entire  atmosphere  of  the  period,  all  its  tastes  and  enthusiasms, 
to  the  courtly  influence.3     And  in  The  Defense  of  an  Essay 

1  lb  id.,  i,  96.  Ubid.,  m,  376. 

3  "Now,  if  they  ask  me  whence  it  is  that  our  conversation  is  so  much 
refined  ?  I  must  freely,  and  without  flattery,  ascribe  it  to  the  court ;  and, 
in  it,  particularly  to  the  King,  whose  example  gives  a  law  to  it.  His  own 
misfortunes,  and  the  nation's,  afforded  an  opportunity,  which  is  rarely 
allowed  to  sovereign  princes,  I  mean  of  traveling,  and  being  conversant  in 
the  most  polisht  courts  of  Europe  ;  and,  thereby,  of  cultivating  a  spirit 
which  was  formed  by  nature  to  receive  the  impressions  of  a  gallant  and 
generous  education.     At  his  return,  he  found  a  nation  lost  as  much  in 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  81 

of  Dramatic  Poesy  he  makes  a  frank  confession  of  personal 
servitude  :  "  For  I  confess  my  chief  endeavors  are  to  delight 
the  age  in  which  I  live."  1 

barbarism  as  in  rebellion  ;  and,  as  the  excellency  of  his  nature  forgave  the 
one,  so  the  excellency  of  his  manners  reformed  the  other.  The  desire  of 
imitating  so  great  a  pattern  first  awakened  the  dull  and  heavy  spirits  of  the 
English  from  their  natural  reservedness  ;  loosened  them  from  their  stiff 
forms  of  conversation,  and  made  them  easy  and  pliant  to  each  other  in 
discourse.  Thus,  insensibly,  our  way  of  living  became  more  free  ;  and  the 
fire  of  English  wit,  which  was  before  stifled  under  a  constrained,  melancholy 
way  of  breeding,  began  first  to  display  its  force,  by  mixing  the  solidity  of 
our  nation  with  the  air  and  gaity  of  our  neighbors.  This  being  granted  to 
be  true,  it  would  be  a  wonder  if  the  poets,  whose  work  is  imitation,  should 
be  the  only  persons  in  three  kingdoms  who  should  not  receive  the  advantage 
of  it ;  or,  if  they  should  not  more  easily  imitate  the  wit  and  conversation  of 
the  present  age  than  of  the  past."     i,  176. 

In  order  to  appreciate  the  full  significance  of  this  passage  one  should 
place  in  contrast  to  it  the  epilog  written  by  Dryden  just  before  his  death 
for  a  presentation  of  Beaumont  and  Fletcher's  Pilgrim  for  his  benefit. 
Attempting  to  defend  the  stage  against  Jeremy  Collier's  attack  Dryden 
wrote  on  this  occasion  : 

"  But  sure  a  banished  court,  with  lewdness  fraught, 
The  seeds  of  open  vice  returning  brought. 


The  poets,  who  must  live  by  courts  or  starve, 
Were  proud,  so  good  a  government  to  serve  ; 
And,  mixing  with  buffons  and  pimps  profane, 
Tainted  the  stage  for  some  small  snip  of  gain." 

1 1,  116.  Of  course  the  important  point  is,  not  that  Dryden  was  connected 
with  a  court,  but  that  he  was  connected  with  a  court  which  was,  in  large 
measure,  cut  off  from  the  national  life.  Compare  his  situation,  for  example, 
with  that  of  Shakespeare  or  Racine.  The  case  of  the  first  of  these,  it  is 
true,  differs  from  that  of  Dryden  in  that  his  effort  was  partially  directed 
toward  entertaining  the  promiscuous  crowd  of  Londoners  wlio  flocked  to 
his  theater.  But  there  is  abundant  evidence  to  show  that  he  took  account 
of  the  aristocratic  part  of  his  audience,  and  his  ardent  royalism  crops  out 
in  nearly  everyone  of  his  plays.  In  Queen  Elizabeth's  time,  however,  the 
best  elements  in  the  nation  were  rallying  about  the  throne  ;  consequently 
Shakespeare's  devotion  to  the  court  and  things  courtly  did  not  lead  him 
outside  the  main  interests  of  English  national  life.  Tho  the  relations 
of  Racine  with  the  court  of  Louis  XIV  were  very  different  from  those  of 

6 


82  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

Fortunately  enough  Dryden  himself  noticed  the  relation 
between  his  criticism  and  the  society  he  kept.  Having  been 
attacked,  just  when  or  how,  is  not  clear,  by  the  old-fashioned 
Elizabethans  and  by  the  more  new-fashioned,  but  not  less 
straight-laced,  classicists  he  answered  by  placing  himself 
among  the  court  wits  and  saying,  in  substance,  These  dull 
fellows  never  could  understand  us.1  So  far  as  this  period 
is  concerned,  then,  it  is  merely  necessary  to  follow  up  this 
clue  which  Dryden  himself  has  given  us.     What  was  the 

Shakespeare  with  the  court  of  Elizabeth,  still,  thro  them,  Racine  was, 
like  his  great  English  predecessor,  kept  in  vital  touch  with  the  life  and 
ideals  of  his  nation.  The  continuing  popularity  of  his  plays  proves  that 
they  really  represent  French  thought  and  feeling. 

Dryden' s  position  differed  from  that  of  Shakespeare  and  Racine  in  that 
for  him  devotion  to  the  court  meant  separation  from  the  best  traditions  and 
life  of  his  nation.  During  the  time  when  he  was  writing  his  heroic  plays 
the  court  of  Charles  II  was  rapidly  alienating,  not  only  the  citizen  class, 
but  even  many  among  those  of  noble  blood  who  had  at  first  hailed  it  with 
enthusiasm.  Its  ideals  were  so  largely  exotic  that  plays  written  to  suit  its 
taste  could  hardly  represent  the  life  of  England.  Hence  when  one  says 
that  the  heroic  play  grew  up  as  a  result  of  the  influence  of  the  court  of 
Charles  II,  his  position  is  not  invalidated  by  the  remark  that  plays  of  a 
very  different  type  have  been  produced  under  the  influence  of  other  courts. 

1  The  passage  referred  to  occurs  in  the  dedication  of  The  Assignation 
(1673),  addressed  to  Sir  Charles  Sedley,  the  most  brilliant  and  dissolute 
among  the  wits  of  the  court:  "For  this  reason,  I  have  often  laughed  at 
the  ignorant  and  ridiculous  descriptions  which  some  pedants  have  given 
of  the  wits,  as  they  are  pleased  to  call  them  ;  which  are  a  generation  of 
men  unknown  to  them,  as  the  people  of  Tartary,  or  the  Terra  Australis, 
are  to  us.  And  therefore,  as  we  draw  giants  and  anthropophagi  in  those 
vacancies  of  our  maps,  where  we  have  not  traveled  to  discover  better  ;  so 
those  wretches  paint  lewdness,  atheism,  folly,  ill-reasoning,  and  all  manner 
of  extravagances  amongst  us,  for  want  of  understanding  what  we  are  .  .  . 
I  am  ridiculously  enough,  accused  of  being  a  contemner  of  universities  ; 
that  is,  in  other  words,  an  enemy  of  learning ;  without  the  foundation  of 
which,  I  am  sure,  no  man  can  pretend  to  be  a  poet.  And  if  this  be  not 
enough,  I  am  made  a  detractor  of  my  predecessors,  whom  I  confess  to  have 
been  my  masters  in  the  art. ' '     Scott-Saintsbury,  iv,  373. 

For  the  real  characters  of  Sedley  and  his  associates  see  Scott-Saintsbury, 
IV,  373  ;  and  Beljame,  Le  Public  et  les  Hommes  de  Leilres,  pp.  5,  6. 


JOHN   DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  83 

nature  of  the  poems,  plays  and  literary  criticism  produced 
by  this  chief  purveyor  of  literature  to  a  witty  court?  The 
first  poem  of  Dryden's  second  peried  was  Annus  Mirabilis 
(1666),  an  epic  narrative  of  the  two  great  events  of  the 
year  1666,  the  war  against  the  Dutch  and  the  burning  of 
London.  Like  the  more  important  of  Dryden's  earlier 
poems  this  epic  is  a  tribute  to  royalty ;  the  Dutch  war  and 
the  great  fire  worked  together  for  the  glory  of  Charles  II 
and  the  Duke  of  York.  But  perhaps  the  work  is  most 
interesting  from  the  point  of  view  of  technical  execution.  It 
is  evident  that  there  could  be  in  it  little  of  genuine  poetic 
inspiration ;  Dryden  has  selected  the  subjects  which  are  of 
public  interest  and  which  offer  opportunity  to  serve  his 
master ;  all  his  talent  is  bent  to  the  task  of  making  a  beauti- 
ful poem  out  of  this  unpromising  material.  In  the  preface 
he  explains  the  nature  of  wit  and  describes  all  the  processes 
of  poetry-making :  and  in  the  poem  he  exemplifies  his 
theories — he  decorates  his  thoughts  with  appropriate  orna- 
ments, clothes  them  in  sounding  terms.  And,  it  must  be 
confessed,  especially  in  the  description  of  the  fire,  he  succeeds 
to  a  remarkable  degree. 

The  letter  which  serves  as  a  preface  to  Annus  Mirabilis, 
evidently  an  exposition  of  the  methods  employed  in  the 
writing  of  the  poem,  exemplifies,  in  its  main  features, 
the  neoclassic  manner  of  thought  which  is  coming  into 
vogue.  There  is  to  be  found  here  nothing  of  the  revolu- 
tionist. Dryden  confesses  specifically  that  in  this  poem 
Virgil  has  been  his  master ;  and  when  one  remembers  all 
that  Virgil  was  made  to  stand  for  among  the  neoclassicists 
this  profession  prepares  him  to  expect  a  cut-and-dried  poetic 
theory.  The  following  sentences  on  the  nature  'of  poetry 
and  wit  are  typical ;  "  The  composition  of  all  poems  is,  or 
ought  to  be,  of  wit ;  and  wit  in  the  poet,  or  wit  writing,  .  .  . 
is  no  other  than  the  faculty  of  imagination  in  the  writer, 


84  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

which,  like  a  nimble  spaniel,  beats  over  and  ranges  through 
the  field  of  memory,  till  it  springs  the  quarry  it  hunted 
after.  .  .  .  Wit  written  is  that  which  is  well  defined,  the 
"happy  result  of  thought,  or  product  of  imagination."  !  This 
is  evidently  the  beginuing  of  the  common-sense,  mechanical 
notion  of  poetry  the  development  of  which  we  shall  have  to 
describe  when  we  reach  the  discussion  of  Dryden's  work 
during  the  decade  between  1680  and  1689.  Could  anything 
more  resemble  a  passage  from  a  treatise  on  The  Complete 
Art  of  Poetry  than  does  the  following  ?  "  So  then  the  first 
happiness  of  the  poet's  imagination  is  properly  invention,  or 
finding  of  the  thought;  the  second  is  fancy,  or  the  variation, 
deriving,  or  molding  of  that  thought,  as  the  judgment  repre- 
sents it  proper  to  the  subject ;  the  third  is  elocution,  or  the 
act  of  clothing  and  adorning  that  thought,  so  found  and 
varied,  in  apt,  significant,  and  sounding  words."  2 

It  is  to  be  taken  into  account  that  this  is  but  a  short 
epistle,  making  few  pretensions.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  if, 
at  the  time  of  its  writing,  Dryden  had  been  in  the  state  of 
mind  which  inspired  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  or  even 
the  little  preface  to  The  Rival  Ladies,  he  would  have  written 
something  far  different.  Ker  notices  that  in  this  letter 
Dryden  admires  in  the  works  of  Ovid  aud  Virgil  chiefly 
their  separate  pieces  of  description.  Throughout  the  entire 
discussion,  one  might  add,  he  seems  to  be  thinking  of  orna- 
ments spread  over  a  work  of  literature  rather  than  of  organic 
beauties  that  shine  out  from  within  ;  there  is  no  reference 
here,  as  there  was  in  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  to  the 
difference  between  a  man  and  a  statue.  The  blessed  uncer- 
tainty and  spontaneity  of  the  earlier  period  have  given  way 
to  a  cold  scholasticism. 

The  first  drama  of  this  period,  Secret  Love,  or  the  Maiden 
Queen  (1667),  was   introduced   with  the  following  prolog  : 

'i,  14.  *i,  15. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  85 


"He  who  writ  this,  not  without  pains  and  thought, 

From  French  and  English  theaters  has  brought 

The  exactest  rules  by  which  a  play  is  wrought. 

II. 

"The  Unities  of  Action,  Place,  and  Time; 
The  scenes  unbroken  ;  and  the  mingled  chime 
Of  Jonson's  humor  with  Corneille's  rime. 

III. 

"  But  while  dead  colors  he  with  care  did  lay, 
He  fears  his  wit,  or  plot,  he  did  not  weigh, 
Which  are  the  living  beauties  of  a  play." 

This  remarkable  prolog  is  in  the  nature  of  a  confession 
of  scepticism.  Dryden  is  saying  to  his  masters  :  Here  is 
your  play ;  I  have  fixed  it  up  to  suit  your  taste,  but  as  for 
me,  I  am  far  from  being  satisfied  with  it ;  I  demand  some- 
thing more  than  regularity  and  ornamentation.  As  we  shall 
see,  the  last  stanza  of  this  prolog,  with  a  corresponding 
passage  in  the  preface  to  Secret  Love,  stands  quite  alone 
among  the  critical  works  of  Dryden's  second  period.  As 
the  anxiety  expressed  in  the  prolog  might  lead  one  to 
expect,  there  is  to  be  found  iu  Secret  Love  more  of  living 
beauty  than  in  any  other  play  of  this  period.  In  the  serious 
parts  there  is  even  less  of  the  heroic  than  in  The  Indian 
Emperor,  and  some  of  the  comic  parts  are  superb.  That  is 
to  say,  we  have  here  in  Dryden's  actual  literary  work  as 
well  as  in  his  theory,  a  slight  reaction,  a  deviation  from  his 
general  tendency. 

In  1668,  with  the  second  edition  of  The  Indian  Emperor, 
Dryden  published  A  Defense  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy, 
"  being  an  Answer  to  the  Preface  of  The  Great  Favorite,  or 
the  Duke  of  Lerma."  This  essay  divides  itself  into  two 
parts,  the  first,  a  defense  of  rime,  the  second,  a  defense  of 


O 


86  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

the  unities.  Id  his  masterly  introduction  Dryden  throws  the 
burden  of  proof  on  his  opponent,  Sir  Robert  Howard,  by 
representing  himself  as  the  humble  champion  of  Aristotle, 
Horace,  and  "all  poets  both  ancient  and  modern."  Howard 
has  based  his  argument  on  the  Aristotelian  doctrine  of  imita- 
tion. Dryden  admits  the  principle — "  'Tis  true  that  to 
imitate  wTell  is  the  poet's  work" — but  to  support  rime, 
which  cannot  be  defended  on  that  basis,  he  attempts  to 
define  the  purpose  of  poetry  :  "  To  affect  the  soul,  and  excite 
the  passions,  and,  above  all,  to  move  admiration  (which 
is  the  delight  of  serious  plays)  a  bare  imitation  will  not 
serve."  *  But  later  he  has  to  meet  Howard's  statement  that, 
"  In  the  difference  of  tragedy,  comedy,  and  farce  itself  there 
can  be  no  determination  but  by  taste,"  and  he  answers  : 
"  Were  there  neither  judge,  taste,  nor  opinion  in  the  world, 
yet  they  would  differ  in  their  natures." 2  And  taking  up 
the  real  problem  of  taste,  he  adds :  "  To  please  the  people 
ought  to  be  the  poet's  aim,  because  plays  are  made  for  their 
delight ;  but  it  does  not  follow  that  they  are  always  pleased 
with  good  plays,  or  that  the  plays  which  please  them  are 
always  good."  In  defending  rime  Dryden  insisted  upon 
a  literary  evaluation  which  bases  itself  upon,  and  expresses 
in  terms  of,  the  social  purpose  of  literature  :  but  now,  when 
it  better  serves  his  turn,  he  insists  upon  principles  like 
Aristotle's.  In  passing  from  one  of  Howard's  points  to 
another  he  has  changed  his  creed.  It  would  be  safe 
to  challenge  anyone  to  gather  from  this  essay  Dryden's  real 
opinions  as  to  the  moot  points  of  seventeenth  century 
criticism  :  at  one  moment  the  principle  of  imitation  is  all- 
sufficient,  at  another,  it  is  cast  aside ;  at  one  moment  a  play 
is  to  be  judged  by  the  pleasure  it  gives,  at  another,  it  is  to 
be  ranked  according  to  some  eternal  law.     Dryden  is  here 

>i,  113J  2i,  120. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  87 

defending,  not  a  doctrine,  but  a  thing  —  the  rimed  play  : 
this  courtly  form  of  amusement  has  been  attacked,  and  in 
its  defence  all  doctrines  are  alike  to  him  ;  his  critical  creed 
changes  with  the  exigencies  of  controversy.  As  to  the 
unities,  Dryden  has  merely  laid  down  "  some  opinions  of 
the  ancients  and  moderns,"  together  with  some  of  his  own. 
The  argument  is  rather  conventional,  based,  with  frequent 
invocations  of  the  goddess  of  Reason,  on  the  law  of  imitation. 

The  chief  significance  of  this  essay  lies  in  the  fact  that  it 
places  Dryden  definitely  before  us  as  the  defender  of  the 
reigning  modes.  Sir  Robert  Howard,  a  champion  of  the  old 
English  dramatic  traditions,  has  defended  blank  verse  and 
utmost  liberty  in  the  structure  of  plots  ;  Dryden  exerts  all 
his  skill  in  the  defense  of  rime  and  the  unities.  His 
authorities  are  Virgil  (mentioned  as  the  only  perfect  poet), 
Jonson  ("  in  judgment  above  all  other  poets  "),  the  ancients, 
especially  Aristotle  and  Horace  (whom  he  "  will  still  think 
as  wise  as  those  who  so  confidently  correct  them "),  and 
Corneille.  This  array  of  authorities  alone,  taken  in  connec- 
tion with  the  apparent  humility  with  which  Dryden  is 
willing  to  submit  to  them,  would  be  sufficient  to  show  how 
complete  has  been  his  change  of  heart  since  the  writing  of 
the  Essay  itself.  It  is  especially  noticeable  that  the  thoro- 
going  good-sense  which  gave  tone  to  the  dedication  of  Annus 
3Iirabilis  has  already  been  perverted.  Dryden  is  here  using 
the  logical  methods  of  the  rationalist  to  defend  a  sort  of 
play  as  irrational  as  can  be  imagined. 

The  preface  to  An  Evening's  Love,  or  the  Mock  Astrologer  Q 
(1668)  shows  how  Dryden's  conformity  and  his  resulting 
popularity  even  thus  early  began  to  color  his  opinion  of  the 
Elizabethans.  According  to  his  opening  statement  he  origi- 
nally intended  to  discuss  in  this  preface  the  difference  between 
the  plays  of  his  age  and  those  of  his  predecessors  on  the 
English   stage,  and   also  the  improvement  of  the  language 


05  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

since  Fletcher's  and  Jonson's  day  :  intentions  which  he  is  to 
carry  out  in  The  Defense  of  the  Epilog.  But  even  tho 
he  has  given  over  for  the  present  the  idea  of  treating  syste- 
matically the  superiority  of  his  own  time,  the  feeling  of  this 
superiority  is  so  strong  upon  him  that  it  will  not  be 
smothered.  Ben  Jonson  comes  off  pretty  well :  "  But  Ben 
Jonson  is  to  be  admired  for  his  mauy  excellencies ;  and  can 
be  taxed  with  fewer  failings  than  any  English  poet.  I  know 
I  have  been  accused  as  an  enemy  of  his  writings ;  but 
without  any  other  reason  than  that  I  do  not  admire  him 
blindly,  and  without  looking  into  his  imperfections.  For 
why  should  he  alone  be  exempted  from  those  frailties,  from 
which  Homer  and  Virgil  are  not  free?  Or  why  should 
there  be  any  Ipse  dixit  in  our  poetry,  any  more  than  in  our 
philosophy  ?  I  admire  and  applaud  him  where  I  ought : 
those  who  do  more,  do  but  value  themselves  in  their  admira- 
tion of  him ;  and,  by  telling  you  they  extol  Ben  Jonson's 
way,  will  insinuate  to  you  that  they  can  practise  it.  For 
my  part,  I  declare  that  I  want  judgment  to  imitate  him  ; 
and  should  think  it  a  great  impudence  in  myself  to  attempt 
it.  To  make  men  appear  pleasantly  ridiculous  on  the  stage, 
was,  as  I  have  said,  his  talent ;  and  in  this  he  needed  not 
the  acumen  of  wit  but  that  of  judgment.  For  the  characters 
and  representations  of  folly  are  only  the  effects  of  observa- 
tion ;  and  observation  is  an  effect  of  judgment."  l  This  is 
merely  patronizing,  but  when  he  comes  to  Shakespeare  and 
Fletcher  our  author  assumes  quite  a  different  tone :  "  I 
think  there  is  no  folly  so  great  in  any  poet  of  our  age, 
as  the  superfluity  and  waste  of  wit  was  in  some  of  our 
predecessors  :  particularly  we  may  say  of  Fletcher  and  of 
Shakespeare,  what  was  said  of  Ovid,  in  omni  ejus  ingenio 
facilius  quod  rejici,  quam  quod  adjioi  potest,  invenies.     The 

•i,  138. 


JOHN   DRYDEN'S    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  89 

contrary  of  which  was  true  in  Virgil  and  our  incomparable 
Jonson."  1 

In  answer  to  the  charge  of  plagiarism  Dryden  modestly 
refers  to  King  Charles,  who  has  lately  remarked  that  he 
wishes  others  would  steal  him  such  plays  as  Dryden's :  but 
his  real  defense  is  an  analysis  of  the  poet's  work,  in  which 
he  proves  that  the  mere  outline  which  an  author  can  steal  is 
but  a  small  part  of  a  play.  This  analysis  is  very  like  the 
one  which  we  examined  in  the  preface  to  Annus  Mirabilis, 
but  its  conclusion  seems  worth  quoting  :  "  But  in  general, 
the  employment  of  a  poet  is  like  that  of  a  curious  gunsmith, 
or  watchmaker ;  the  iron  or  silver  is  not  his  own  ;  but  they 
are  the  least  part  of  that  which  gives  the  value  :  the  price 
lies  wholly  in  the  workmanship."  2  It  would  hardly  be  fair 
to  hold  Dryden  responsible  for  all  the  implications  of  this 
mechanical  figure ;  but  it  is  surely  significant  of  his  general 
state  of  mind. 

This  preface  distinctly  foreshadows  the  Defense  of  the 
Epilog  (1672),  with  its  sharp  arraignment  of  the  faults 
of  Shakespeare.  That  is  a  significant  sentence  in  which 
Dryden  connects  philosophy  and  poetry  :  "  Or  why  should 
there  be  any  Ipse  dixit  in  our  poetry,  any  more  than  in  our 
philosophy  ? "  He  has  lost  faith  in  the  traditions  which 
called  forth  the  enthusiasm  of  his  youth,  but,  like  the 
English  philosophers  of  his  time,  he  has  abundant  confi- 
dence in  the  principles  and  methods  of  the  present. 

In  the  critical  works  just  examined  Dryden  shows  that 
he  has  been  for  some  time  revolving  in  his  mind  the  various 
aspects  of  the  heroic  drama,  and,  as  one  is  thus  led  to 
expect,  it  is  in  plays  of  the  heroic  type  that  the  dramatic 
activity  of  the  period  finally  culminates.  The  first  of  these  \j 
is    Tyrannic  Love,    or  the  Royal  Martyr    (1669).     Dryden 

1i,  139.  *i,  147. 


o 


90  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

begins  his  preface  to  this  drama :  "  I  was  moved  to  write 
this  play  by  many  reasons  :  amongst  the  others,  the  com- 
mands of  some  persons  of  honor,  for  whom  I  have  a  most 
particular  respect,  were  daily  sounding  in  my  ears,  that  it 
would  be  of  good  example  to  undertake  a  poem  of  this 
nature.  Neither  was  my  own  inclination  wanting  to  second 
their  desires."  1  The  drama  which  was  thus  written  at  the 
suggestion  of  "  some  persons  of  honor "  presents  most  of 
the  features  of  a  typical  heroic  play  :  a  rather  colorless 
heroine  of  irreproachable  character,  a  fine  code  of  honor, 
and  a  warrior  who  storms  against  gods  and  men.  In 
accordance  with  Dryden's  theories  it  exhibits,  also,  miracles, 
guardian  angels,  aud  spirits  of  divers  descriptions.  But 
Maximin,  the  fearless  warrior,  is  villain  rather  than  hero, 
and  in  the  end  the  play  is  an  apotheosis  of  Christian  faith 
rather  than  of  romantic  courage. 

It  is  in  the  two  parts  of  The  Conquest  of  Granada  (1670) 
that  the  English  heroic  type  reaches  its  culmination.  Here 
we  have  the  all-conquering  hero  who  whistles  fortune  after 
him,  makes  and  unmakes  kings,  single-handed  disperses 
armies,  and,  quite  contrary  to  Restoration  standards,  loves 
with  a  nice  regard  for  an  extremely  conventional  code  of 
honor.  The  other  chief  characters,  the  villains,  merely 
male  and  female  devils,  and  the  heroine,  spotlessly  insipid, 
are  mere  abstractions.  There  are  no  lights  or  shades;  all 
the  actions  are  either  miraculously  heroic  or  unspeakably 
heinous.  It  is  really  a  complete  order  of  things  that  we 
have  before  us  here ;  no  one  acts  or  talks  like  a  person  in 
the  real  world,  but,  under  the  conditions  of  this  artificial 
universe,  all  is  consistent.  Every  character  does  what  is 
expected  of  him,  and  the  whole  scheme  of  things  makes  it 
possible  to  carry  out  a  plot  which  any  relation  to  reality 

1  Scott-Saintsbury,  in,  376. 


JOHN   DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  91 

would  render  impossible.  The  polisht  versification  merely 
gives  a  fitting  exterior  to  this  material.  But  what  I  wish  to 
emphasize  is  the  fact  that  this  whole  make-believe  universe 
is  a  glorification  of  royalty  and  nobility.  At  this  time  the 
king  and  his  court  are  attempting  to  maintain  their  position, 
especially  to  assert  their  supremacy  over  "the  town."  Thus 
it  may  readily  be  understood  how  a  stage  world  in  which 
their  superiority  over  the  common  herd  is  a  fundamental 
principle,  and  throughout  which  is  maintained  the  elevation 
of  thought  and  conduct  to  which  they  lay  claim,  is  as 
incense  in  their  nostrils.  Nothing  else  could  have  been  so 
suitable  for  the  entertaining  of  "  a  noble  audience." 

This  period  reached  its  dramatic  and  critical  climaxes  in 
the  same  volume  :  with  the  two  parts  of  The  Conquest  of 
Granada  were  published  in  1672  an  essay  Of  Heroic  Plays 
and  the  Defense  of  the  Epilog.  The  first  of  these,  Dry  den's 
chief  apology  for  a  type  of  literature  to  which  he  devoted 
some  of  his  most  ambitious  efforts  and  for  which  he  was  the 
accepted  sponsor,  begins  in  a  tone  of  triumph  :  "  Whether 
heroic  verse  ought  to  be  admitted  into  serious  plays,  is  not 
now  to  be  disputed  :  it  is  already  in  possession  of  the  stage ; 
and  I  dare  confidently  affirm  that  very  few  tragedies,  in  this 
age,  shall  be  received  without  it."  x  Then,  after  repeating 
an  argument  for  rime  which  we  have  already  heard  in  the 
Defense  of  an  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  he  goes  on  to  relate 
the  history  of  the  heroic  play  :  during  the  time  when  plays 
were  prohibited  in  England  Sir  William  Davenant  intro- 
duced from  Italy  "  examples  of  moral  virtue,  writ  in  verse 
and  performed  in  recitative  music  ; "  2  after  the  Restoration 
these  entertainments  developed  into  heroic  plays.  But, 
according  to  Dry  den,  Davenant' s  plays  lacked  fulness  of 
plot  and  variety  of  characters,  and  something  might  have 

'i,  148.  2i,149. 


92  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

been  added  to  the  beauty  of  the  style.  Here  Dry  den  begins 
with  becoming  modesty,  to  give  an  account  of  what  he 
himself  has  performed.  Whereas  Davenant  took  his  image 
of  a  heroic  poem  from  the  drama,  Dryden  derived  his  ideal  of 
a  heroic  drama  from  the  heroic  poem.  Therefore,  it  seemed 
to  our  author,  he  was  the  first  to  give  epic  dignity  to  the 
heroic  play.  The  inspiration  of  our  author's  innovations,  he 
tells  us,  came  from  a  passage  of  Ariosto's  : 

"Le  donne,  i  cavalier,  l'arme,  gli  amori, 
Le  cortesie,  l'audaci  imprese  io  canto."  l 

The  ministry  of  gods  as  well  as  of  disembodied  spirits  and 
the  performance  of  deeds  of  valor  by  heroes  has  always  been 
allowed  in  heroic  poetry,  and  is,  therefore,  essential  to  the 
heroic  play. 

A  detailed  account  of  this  essay  is  unnecessary :  it  exhibits 
an  exceptional  unity  of  principle.  The  heroic  play  in  all 
its  attributes  is  defended  on  the  basis  of  the  theory  of  ideali- 
zation :  everything  is  to  be  heightened ;  or,  to  use  Dryden's 
own  figure,  we  are  to  fly  rather  than  walk. 

At  first  thought  this  essay  may  seem  to  stand  in  direct 
contradiction  to  the  preface  of  An  Evening's  Love.  In  the 
preface  of  1671  we  saw  Dryden  the  cool  champion  of 
moderation;  and  now,  in  1672,  he  is  defending  excesses 
which  seemed  ridiculous  even  to  many  of  his  contempo- 
raries. The  apparent  anomaly  becomes  intelligible  if  we 
remember  that  in  both,  as  also  in  the  Defense  of  an  Essay 
of  Dramatic  Poesy,  Dryden  is  defending  at  once  himself  and 
the  literary  fashions  of  the  day.  There  is  a  tone  almost 
domineering  in  the  concluding  sentence  of  the  essay  Of 
Heroic  Plays :  "  But  I  have  already  swept  the  stakes  ;  and, 
with  the  good  fortune  of  prosperous  gamesters,  can  be,  content 

1 1,  150. 


\ 


JOHN  dryden 's  literary  criticism.  93 

to  sit  quietly ;  to  hear  my  fortune  cursed  by  some,  and  my 
faults  arraigned  by  others,  and  to  suffer  both  without 
reply."  1 

In  the  Defense  of  the  Epilog 2  Dryden  avowedly  sets  out 
to  examine  the  works  of  his  predecessors  on  the  English 
stage.  A  passage  from  the  opening  paragraph  will  serve  to 
show  the  temper  of  the  entire  essay.  After  explaining  that 
he  feels  obliged  to  defend  the  epilog  in  which  he  has 
taxed  "  the  former  writing  "  Dryden  fortifies  himself  against 
misinterpretation  :  "  Yet  I  would  so  maintain  my  opinion 
of  the  present  age,  as  not  to  be  wanting  in  my  veneration 
for  the  past :  I  would  ascribe  to  dead  authors  their  just 
praises  in  those  things  wherein  they  have  excelled  us ;  and 
in  those  wherein  we  contend  with  them  for  the  preeminence, 
I  would  acknowledge  our  advantage  to  the  age,  and  claim 

1 1,  159. 

2  Epilog 

To  the  Second  Part  of  the  Conquest  of  Granada  (1672). 

Following  are  the  essential  parts  of  this  epilog  : 

' '  They,  who  have  best  succeeded  on  the  stage, 
Have  still  conformed  their  genius  to  the  age. 
Thus  Jonson  did  mechanic  humor  show, 
When  men  were  dull,  and  conversation  low. 
Then,  Comedy  was  faultless,  but  'twas  coarse  : 
Cobb's  tankard  was  a  jest,  and  Otter's  horse. 
And,  as  their  Comedy,  their  love  was  mean  ; 
Except,  by  chance,  in  some  one  labored  scene, 
Which  must  atone  for  an  ill-written  play  : 
They  rose,  but  at  their  height  could  seldom  stay. 
Fame  then  was  cheap,  and  the  first  comer  sped  ; 
And  they  have  kept  it  since  by  being  dead. 

If  Love  and  Honor  now  are  higher  rais'd 
'Tis  not  the  poet  but  the  age  is  prais'd. 
Wit's  now  arrived  to  a  more  high  degree  ; 
Our  native  language  more  refined  and  free. 
Our  ladies  and  our  men  now  speak  more  wit 
In  conversation,  than  those  poets  writ." 


94  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

no  victory  from  our  wit.  This  being  what  I  have  proposed 
to  myself,  I  hope  I  shall  not  be  thought  arrogant  when  I 
inquire  into  their  errors.  For  we  live  in  an  age  so  sceptical, 
that  as  it  determines  little,  so  it  takes  nothing  from  antiquity 
on  trust ;  and  I  confess  to  have  no  other  ambition  in  this 
essay,  than  that  poetry  may  not  go  backward,  when  all  other 
arts  and  sciences  are  advancing."  1  And  a  little  later  Dryden 
adds,  on  the  authority  of  Horace,  "  that  antiquity  alone  is 
no  plea  for  the  excellency  of  a  poem."  Here  again  our 
author  brings  together  philosophy  aud  poetry ;  the  literature 
of  the  former  age  is  to  be  examined  sceptically,  coldly,  in 
the  manner  of  contemporaneous  English  philosophy;  there 
are  to  be  no  fond  enthusiasms  here. 

Very  methodically  Dryden  goes  about  his  exposition  : 
first  he  will  show  that  since  the  age  of  Shakespeare  and 
Fletcher  there  has  been  "  an  improvement  of  our  wit,  lan- 
guage and  conversation;  or  an  alteration  in  them  for  the 
better."  Improper  words  and  phrases  have  been  dropped. 
There  is  to  be  found  some  solecism  of  speech  or  notorious 
flaw  in  sense  in  every  page  of  Shakespeare  or  Fletcher. 
The  times  were  ignorant  wherein  they  wrote ;  witness  the 
lameness  of  their  plots ;  Fletcher  understood  not  correct 
plotting  or  the  decorum  of  the  stage.  "  But  these  absur- 
dities, which  those  poets  committed,  may  more  properly  be 
called  the  age's  faults  than  theirs ;  for,  besides  the  want  of 
education  and  learning  (which  was  their  particular  unhappi- 
ness),  they  wanted  the  benefit  of  converse." 2  Poor  Ben 
Jonson's  linguistic  sins  are  dragged  to  light  till  our  author 
grows  weary  of  his  task  :  "And  what  correctness,  after  this, 
can  be  expected  from  Shakespeare  or  from  Fletcher,  who 
wanted  that  learning  and  care  which  Jonson  had?" 

Besides  rejecting  improper  words  and  phrases,  continues 

'i,  162.  2i,  166. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  95 

Dryden,  it  is  obvious  that  we  have  admitted  many  good 
ones,  some  of  which  we  wanted,  others  of  which  are  rather 
ornamental  than  necessary.  Our  tongue  has  been  beautified 
by  Shakespeare,  Fletcher,  Jonson,  Suckling,  and  Waller. 
In  addition  to  refinement  of  speech  there  has  been  a  refine- 
ment of  wit :  "The  wit  of  the  last  age  was  yet  more  incor- 
rect than  their  language.  Shakespeare,  who  many  times  has 
written  better  than  any  poet,  in  any  language,  is  yet  so  far 
from  writing  wit  always,  or  expressing  that  wit  according 
to  the  dignity  of  the  subject,  that  he  writes,  in  many  places, 
below  the  dullest  writer  of  ours,  or  any  precedent  age. 
Never  did  any  author  precipitate  himself  from  such  a  height 
of  thought  to  so  low  expressions,  as  he  often  does.  He  is 
the  very  Janus  of  poets ;  he  wears  almost  everywhere  two 
faces ;  you  have  scarce  begun  to  admire  the  one,  ere  you 
despise  the  other."  l  After  stating  that  even  Ben  Jonson 
descended  to  the  "most  grovelling  kind  of  wit,  which  we 
call  clenches,"  Dryden  goes  on  to  say :  "  But,  to  conclude 
with  what  brevity  I  can,  I  will  only  add  this,  in  defence  of 
our  present  writers,  that,  if  they  reach  not  the  excellencies 
of  Ben  Jonson  (which  no  age,  I  am  confident,  ever  shall), 
yet,  at  least,  they  are  above  that  meanness  of  thought  which 
I  have  taxed,  and  which  is  frequent  in  him. 

"That  the  wit  of  this  age  is  more  courtly,  may  easily  be 
proved,  by  viewing  the  characters  of  gentlemen  which  were 
written  in  the  last." 2  And  then,  after  some  remarks  on 
Truewit,  Mercutio,  and  Don  John  :  "I  have  always  acknowl- 
edged the  wit  of  our  predecessors,  with  all  the  veneration 
which  becomes  me ;  but,  I  am  sure,  their  wit  was  not  that 
of  gentlemen  ;  there  was  ever  something  that  was  ill-bred 
and  clownish  in  it,  and  which  confessed  the  conversation  of 
the  authors." 3    And    this    leads    Dryden    to   the  last  and 

1 1,172.  2i,  174.  »i,  174. 


\ 


96  WM.    E.    BOH]*. 

greatest  advantage  of  the  Restoration  literature,  which  pro- 
ceeds from  conversation  :  through  the  influence  of  the  court 
there  has  been  added  to  the  drama  a  touch  of  gallantry 
which  was  quit4_impossible  to  the  plain-bred  Elizabethans.1 

The  essay  closes  as  it  began  :  "To  conclude  all,  let  us 
render  to  our  predecessors  what  was  their  due,  without 
confining  ourselves  to  servile  imitation  of  all  they  writ ; 
and,  without  assuming  to  ourselves  the  title  of  better  poets, 
let  us  ascribe  to  the  gallantry  and  civility  of  our  age  the 
advantage  which  we  have  above  them,  and  to  our  knowledge 
of  the  customs  and  manner  of  it  the  happiness  we  have  to 
please  beyond  them."  2 

As  Professor  Hamelius  has  said,3  this  essay  marks  Dry  den 
as  class-conscious.  He  has  married  into  a  noble  family  and 
is  on  familiar  terms  with  the  great ;  and  therefore  he  repre- 
sents the  tastes  of  the  governing  classes.  The  stage  has 
learned  its  fine  manners  from  the  court,  and  must  be 
defended  against  the  lower  strata  of  society  :  "  Gentlemen 
will  now  be  entertained  with  the  follies  of  each  other ;  and 
though  they  allow  Cobb  and  Tib  to  speak  properly,  yet  they 
are  not  much  pleased  with  their  tankard  or  with  their  rags. 

1  "  In  the  age  wherein  those  poets  lived,  there  was  less  of  gallantry  than 
in  ours  ;  neither  did  they  keep  the  best  company  of  theirs.  Their  fortune 
has  been  much  like  that  of  Epicurus,  in  the  retirement  of  his  gardens  ;  to 
live  almost  unknown,  and  to  be  celebrated  after  their  decease.  I  cannot 
find  that  any  of  them  had  been  conversant  in  courts,  except  Ben  Jonson  ; 
and  his  genius  lay  not  so  much  that  way,  as  to  make  an  improvement  by  it. 
Greatness  was  not  then  so  easy  of  access,  nor  conversation  so  free  as  it  now 
is.  I  cannot,  therefore,  conceive  it  any  insolence  to  affirm,  that,  by  the 
knowledge  and  pattern  of  their  wit  who  writ  before  us,  and  by  the  advantage 
of  our  own  conversation,  the  discourse  and  raillery  of  our  comedies  excel 
what  has  been  written  by  them.  And  this  will  be  denied  by  none,  but  some 
few  old  fellows  who  value  themselves  on  their  acquaintance  with  the  Black 
Friars  ;  who,  because  they  saw  their  plays,  would  pretend  to  the  right  to 
judge  ours."     I,  175. 

2 1,  177. 

3  Die  Kritik  in  der  Englischen  Literatur,  p.  37. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  97 

And  surely  their  conversation  can  be  no  jest  to  them  on  the 
theater,  when  they  could  avoid  it  in  the  streets."  l 

And  just  as  this  courtly  literature  is  to  be  defended  " 
against  the  lower  classes  of  the  present,  so  it  is  to  be 
defended  against  the  sturdy,  human,  romantic  English  litera- 
ture of  the  past.  It  is  noticeable  that  the  Ipse  dixit  that 
Dryden  opposes  is  not  that  of  the  ancients :  the  theories  of 
Aristotle  and  Horace  crop  out  on  nearly  every  page.  "  Some 
few  old  fellows  who  value  themselves  on  their  acquaintance 
with  the  Black  Friars" — that  is,  the  champions  of  the 
Elizabethans — are  his  real  opponents.  He  has  the  spirit 
of  English  science  and  philosophy,  he  delights  in  breaking 
from  the  past ;  but  it  is  from  the  past  of  Shakespeare  and 
Fletcher  that  he  is  taking  leave.  The  magisterial  tone  of 
the  introduction  is  in  itself  extremely  significant :  in  the 
Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  Dryden  loved  Shakespeare  :  here 
there  is  no  talk  of  love ;  instead  we  are  to  have  a  scientific 
impartiality.  But  even  this  profession  is  hardly  justified  by 
what  follows.  With  the  exception  of  a  patronizing  apology 
here  and  there,  the  entire  essay  is  a  piece  of  fault-finding. 
Taking  for  granted,  even,  that  the  criticism  is  just,  for  us 
the  important  thing  is  that  in  1672  Dryden  is  disposed  to 
pass  the  virtues  of  the  great  Elizabethans  without  more 
than  a  perfunctory  acknowledgment.  His  praise  is  for 
Virgil,  Jonson,  and,  above  all,  for  the  playwrights  of  the 
Restoration.  The  present  is  to  Dryden  a  golden  age :  The 
heroic  play,  the  polisht  versification,  the  gay  and  courtly 
manners  mark  for  him  the  height  of  culture  and  of  art. 

The  Defense  of  the  Epilog  marks  the  end  of  the  critical 
activity  of  Dryden's  second   period.2     It    remains  only   to 

li,  177. 

2  The  fact  that  the  Defense  of  the  Epilog  was  omitted  from  some  copies 
of  the  second  edition  of  The  Conquest  of  Granada  (1673)  and  from  all  later 
editions  seems  to  indicate  that  Dryden  soon  became  ashamed  of  it. 

7 


98  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

make  brief  mention  of  two  non-critical  works  which  show 
the  transition  to  the  third  period.  The  State  of  Innocence 
and  the  Fall  of  Man  (1674)  gives  evidence  of  a  decided 
change  in  our  author's  artistic  purposes.  Scott  is  no  doubt 
correct  in  supposing  that  this  piece,  an  opera,  could  never 
have  been  seriously  intended  for  the  stage;  there  could, 
then,  have  been  very  little  financial  motive  for  the  writing 
of  it.  Here  we  have,  it  thus  appears,  an  author  who  has 
been  adapting  his  work  to  the  taste  of  king  and  court  fol- 
lowing for  once  the  promptings  of  his  own  judgment.  In 
taking  his  material  from  the  still  obscure  Paradise  Lost 
Dryden  gives  incontrovertible  evidence  of  literary  judgment 
far  above  contemporary  modes.  The  result  of  his  effort  is 
what  we  should  expect :  tho  tinged  with  courtly  smartness 
and  adorned  with  turns  of  thought  and  polisht  riming 
verse,  The  State  of  Innocence  contains  passages  of  rare  dignity 
and  beauty. 

Aureng-Zebe,  a  Tragedy  (1675)  is  the  last  and  best  of 
Dryden's  heroic  plays — best  because  it  is  least  heroic.  It 
is  in  the  prolog  to  this  play  that  our  author  makes  the 
profession  of  a  change  of  taste  which  marks  the  beginning 
of  the  third  critical  period.  "  Agreeably  to  what  might  be 
expected  from  this  declaration,"  says  Scott,  "the  verse  used 
in  Aureng-Zebe  is  of  that  kind  which  may  be  most  easily 
applied  to  the  purposes  of  ordinary  dialog.  There  is  much 
less  of  ornate  structure  and  emphatic  swell,  than  occurs  in  the 
speeches  of  Almanzor  and  Maximin ;  and  Dryden,  though 
late,  seems  to  have  at  length  discovered,  that  the  language  of 
true  passion  is  inconsistent  with  that  regular  modulation,  to 
maintain  which  the  actor  must  mouth  each  couplet  in  a  sort 
of  recitative." 1  It  may  be  added  that  in  the  more  vital 
features  of  the  play,  in  the  characters  and  action,  Aureng- 

1  Scott-Saintsbury,  v,  182. 


JOHN    DKYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  99 

Zebe  comes  nearer  to  life  than  any  of  our  author's  preceding 
tragedies.  This  play,  then,  like  the  State  of  Innocence,  fore- 
shadows a  change  in  the  direction  of  romanticism. 

This  period  as  a  whole  is  best  described  as  one  of  perfect 
conformity.  We  have  found  in  it,  especially  at  first,  some  of 
the  doctrine  and  a  good  deal  of  the  pose  of  neoclassicism ; 
and  in  a  sense  these  persist  throughout.  Nevertheless  neo-  ^ 
classicism  does  not  give  the  key-note  to  this  period.  When 
Dryden  had  carefully  worked  up  an  epic  poem  in  praise 
of  the  king  he  was  under  the  necessity  of  explaining  and 
defending  his  method,  and,  since  the  poem  had  been  wrought 
with  infinite  pains,  it  was  truly  represented  as  a  work  of  the 
judgment.  But  once  started  on  the  really  characteristic 
work  of  the  period,  our  author  threw  his  judgment  to  the 
winds.  It  was  all  to  the  glory  of  the  king,  as  had  been  the 
poem  referred  to  above,  but  now  the  king  required  extrava- 
gance rather  than  reason,  and  extravagance  was  supplied. 
To  be  sure  it  was  put  into  a  highly  polisht  and  conven- 
tional form,  but  this  only  served  the  more  to  cut  it  oif  from 
life  and  from  the  ideals  of  Dryden's  earlier  period.  And  in 
his  criticism  our  author  set  himself  to  justify  the  form  and 
content  of  this  literature,  and  to  denounce  the  older  English 
drama,  which,  of  course,  stood  in  direct  contrast  to  it. 

Considered  from  a  purely  formal  point  of  view,  it  is  true, 
his  critical  methods  remained  those  of  a  neoclassicist,  but 
the  plays  which  he  wrote  and  defended  were  such  as  would 
have  put  to  the  blush  any  French  classicist  or  any  good- 
sense  author  of  eighteenth  century  England.  The  English 
heroic  play  was,  to  be  sure,  related  to  the  French  classic 
drama :  its  versification,  its  conventionality  of  plot  and 
character,  etc.,  were  neoclassic  traits.  In  its  general  spirit, 
moreover,  it  was  no  doubt  related  to  the  contemporary 
baroque  architecture  and  painting  of  the  continent.  But  it  >• 
cannot  be  too  strongly  insisted  upon  that  the  form  of  play 


d 


100  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

of  which  we  are  talking  was  peculiar  to  England  :  the 
exuberant  complexity  of  many  of  its  plots,  the  extravagance 
of  its  characters,  its  negligence  of  the  probabilities  of  the 
real  world  were  not  in  the  least  classical,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, thoroly,  unmistakably  English.  So  it  is  necessary 
to  insist  upon  the  fact  that  altho  the  forms  of  Dry  den's 
theory  were,  at  this  time,  the  same,  in  large  measure,  as 
those  of  the  real  neoclassicists,  the  inner,  organizing  force 
of  his  activity  was  not  the  classicist  creed — in  fact  was  not 
-^  a  creed  at  all.  His  use  of  the  classicist  doctrines  merely 
resulted  in  a  sort  of  pseudo-neoclassicism.  So  when  I  say 
that  this  critical  period  was  one  of  conformity  I  mean  to 
imply  that  during  this  time  Dryden' s  work — poems,  plays, 
and  criticism  alike — was  but  a  phase  of  the  life  of  the  court. 
The  court,  not  rigidly  classical  in  its  life  or  tastes,  demanded 
a  characteristic  literature ;  and  Dryden,  perfectly  adapted  to 
his  surroundings,  quick  to  respond  to  every  demand  made 
upon  him,  was  the  one  best  fitted  to  produce  that  literature, 
and  to  explain  and  defend  it.  If  the  criticism  which  grew 
out  of  these  circumstances,  while  preserving  much  of  the 
outward  form  of  neoclassicism,  is  not  true  to  its  inner 
spirit,  this  fact  hardly  gives  occasion  for  surprise. 

The  Third  Period. 

One  cannot  read  far  into  the  criticism  which  Dryden 
produced  between  1G75  aud  1679  without  discovering  that 
both  in  substance  and  spirit  it  divides  itself  sharply  from 
that  of  the  period  which  immediately  preceded  it.  There  is 
here  a  return  to  the  feeling  which  inspired  the  best  passages 
•  of  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy.  The  love  for  Shakespeare 
and  his  contemporaries  which  was  so  strong  upon  our  author 
during  his  first  period,  has  returned  with  redoubled  force. 
And    with    this    change    there    is    noticeable    a  remarkable 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  101 

increase  in  sincerity.     Here,  as  never  before,  we  feel  that 
we  are  getting  at  Dryden's  inmost  convictions. 

I  shall  attempt  to  show  that  the  new  spirit  which  has  ¥ 
come  over  onr  author's  criticism  connects  itself  with  a 
change  in  his  literary  and  financial  relations — especially  his 
relations  with  the  court.  In  his  second  period  we  have 
seen  Dryden  loaded  with  such  favors  as  had  fallen  to  the 
lot  of  no  English  poet  before  him.  But  sooner  than  one 
might  expect  thorns  began  to  appear  among  his  laurels.  As 
early  as  1671  was  produced  upon  the  stage  The  Rehearsal, 
by  the  Duke  of  Buckingham  and  others,  in  which  our 
author's  plays  were  made  a  public  laughing  stock.  In  1672 
Dryden  was  violently  attacked,  again  on  the  score  of  his 
plays,  by  Mathew  Clifford  in  his  Four  Letters.  In  1673 
came  the  famous  controversy  with  Elkanah  Settle,  which 
showed  Dryden's  hold  upon  the  public  to  be  astonishingly 
precarious.  This  quarrel  was  connected  with  our  author's 
much  more  important  relations  with  John  Wilmot,  Earl  of 
Rochester.  This  brilliant  young  nobleman,  an  active, 
though  capricious,  patron  of  letters,  had  bestowed  his  favor 
very  liberally  upon  Dryden.1  But  unfortunately  the  latter 
formed  a  connection  with  the  Earl  of  Mulgrave,  an  enemy 
of  Rochester's.  Rochester,  without  any  better  reason  than 
this,  introduced  Elkanah  Settle  to  the  royal  favor.  Settle's 
Empress  of  Morocco  (1673)  was  first  acted  at  Whitehall  by 
the  Lords  and  Ladies  of  the  court,  an  honor  which  had 
never  been  paid  to  any  of  Dryden's  compositions.  On  the 
stage  it  had  an  exceptionally  long  run,  and,  according  to 
Dennis,  it  was  the  first  play  to  be  published  with  cuts  and 
sold  for  two  shillings.  After  Settle  Rochester  took  up  first 
Crowne  and  then  Otway,  each  of  whom  seems  to  have  occu- 

1  In  his  dedication  of  Marriage  a  la  Mode  (1673)  Dryden  gave  Rochester 
profuse  thanks  for  favors  procured  at  court.     Cf.  Scott-Saintsbury,  iv,  255. 


102  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

pied  for  a  time  the  position  at  court  which  rightfully 
belonged  to  the  laureate.  Not  content  with  these  slights  put 
upon  Dryden,  Rochester  attacked  him  in  an  anonymous 
imitation  of  Horace,  An  Allusion  to  the  Tenth  Satire.  Of 
more  importance  was  Mulgrave's  Essay  on  Satire,  a  piece 
of  sarcasm,  frank  to  the  point  of  brutality,  directed  against 
both  Rochester  and  the  King.  Scott  supposes  that  this  was 
merely  revised  by  Dryden,  perhaps  about  1675.  But  when 
it  was  anonymously  made  public  in  1(379,  it  was  Dryden 
who  was  held  responsible  for  it.  In  consequence,  upon  the 
night  of  the  eighteenth  of  December,  1679,  he  was  waylaid 
and  beaten  by  ruffians  in  the  hire  of  Rochester. 

The  fact  that  in  1679  Dryden  was  readily  believed  to  be 
the  author  of  a  satire  on  the  King  suggests  a  decline  of  royal 
favor.  In  the  dedication  of  Aureng-Zebe,  addressing  Lord 
Mulgrave,  Dryden  wrote  :  "As  I  am  no  successor  to  Homer 
in  his  wit,  so  neither  do  I  desire  to  be  in  his  poverty.  I 
can  make  no  rhapsodies,  nor  go  abegging  at  the  Grecian 
doors,  while  I  sing  the  praises  of  their  ancestors.  The  times 
of  Virgil  please  me  better,  because  he  had  an  Augustus  for 
his  patron  ;  and,  to  draw  the  allegory  nearer  you,  I  am  sure 
I  shall  not  want  a  Maecenas  with  him.  It  is  for  your  lord- 
ship to  stir  up  that  remembrance  in  his  Majesty,  which  his 
many  avocations  of  business  have  caused  him,  I  fear,  to  lay 
aside."  l 

About  the  time  of  the  appearance  of  the  Essay  on  Satire, 
says  Scott,  "  Mulgrave  seems  ....  to  have  fallen  into  dis- 
grace, and  was  considered  as  in  opposition  to  the  court. 
Dryden  was  deprived  of  his  intercession  and  appears  in 
some  degree  to  have  shared  his  disgrace.2    As  to  the  results 

1  Scott-Saintsbury,  v.  196. 

2  As  a  proof  of  Dryden' s  opposition  to  the  court  Christie  mentions  that  in 
a  satire  against  Shaftesbury  published  very  shortly  before  the  appearance  of 
Absalom  and  Achitophel  "he  is  made  to  figure  in  Shaftesbury's  train,  as 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  103 

of  this  loss  of  favor  he  adds  :  "  It  is  said  distinctly  by  one 
libeller,  that  his  pension  was  for  a  time  interrupted.  This 
does  not  seem  likely :  it  is  more  probable,  that  Dry  den 
sliared  the  general  fate  of  the  household  of  Charles  II, 
whose  appointments  were  but  irregularly  paid ;  but  perhaps 
his  supposed  delinquency  made  it  more  difficult  for  him  than 
others  to  obtain  redress."  l 

It  remains  only  to  add  to  this  recital  the  evidence  from 
Dryden's  works.  In  his  dedication  of  Aureng-Zebe  (1679) 
he  complained  bitterly  against  the  court.  In  the  preface 
to  All  for  Love2  (1678),  and  the  dedication  of  The  Kind 
Keeper3  (1678)  he  returned  to  the  attack  with  even  greater 

poet  laureate  to  Shaftesbury,  imagined  to  have  been  elected  king  of  Poland." 
The  satire  referred  to  is  given  in  a  note  as  "  A  modest  Vindication  of  the 
Earl  of  Shaftesbury,  in  a  Letter  to  a  Friend,  concerning  his  being  elected 
King  of  Poland."     Poetical  Worts,  xlvi. 

1  Scott-Saintsbury,  i,  195-6. 

2  "Men  of  pleasant  conversation  (at  least  esteemed  so),  and  endued  with 
a  trifling  kind  of  fancy,  perhaps  helped  out  with  some  smattering  of  Latin, 
are  ambitious  to  distinguish  themselves  from  the  herd  of  gentlemen,  by 
their  poetry.  .  .  . 

"  And  is  not  this  a  wretched  affectation,  not  to  be  contented  with  what  for- 
tune has  done  for  them,  and  sit  down  quietly  with  their  estates,  but  they 
must  call  their  wits  in  question,  and  needlessly  expose  their  nakedness  to 
public  view  ?  Not  considering  that  they  are  not  to  expect  the  same  approba- 
tion from  sober  men,  which  they  found  from  their  flatterers  after  the  third 
bottle.  If  a  little  glittering  in  discourse  has  passed  them  on  us  for  witty 
men,  where  was  the  necessity  of  undeceiving  the  world  ?  Would  a  man 
who  has  an  ill  title  to  an  estate,  but  yet  is  in  possession  of  it ;  would  he 
bring  it  of  his  own  accord,  to  be  tried  at  Westminster  ?  We,  who  write,  if  *> 
we  want  the  talent,  yet  have  the  excuse  that  we  do  it  for  a  poor  subsistence  ; 
but  what  can  be  urged  in  their  defense,  who,  not  having  the  vocation  of 
poverty  to  scribble,  out  of  mere  wantonness  take  pains  to  make  themselves 
ridiculous  ?  Horace  was  certainly  in  the  right  when  he  said  that  no  man  is 
satisfied  with  his  own  condition.  A  poet  is  not  pleased,  because  he  is  not 
rich  ;  and  the  rich  are  discontented,  because  the  poets  will  not  admit  them 
of  their  number."     1,196-7. 

3  "Some  few  of  our  nobility  are  learned,  and  therefore  1  will  not  con- 
clude an  absolute  contradiction  between  the  terms  of  nobleman  and  scholar  ; 


104  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

"  violence.  Practically  all  of  the  essays  of  this  time  breathe 
a  hatred  against  those  in  high  places  which  is  absolutely  out 
of  keeping  with  the  position  which  Dryden  occupied  during 
his  earlier  period.  In  accordance  with  what  one  is  led  to 
expect  from  our  author's  changed  position  is  the  discovery 
that  the  two  plays  of  the  period  now  under  discussion  were 
not  written  with  a  view  to  supplying  the  demands  of  the 
market.  In  1695  Dryden  wrote  with  regard  to  the  first 
of  these:  "I  never  writ  anything  for  myself  but  Antony 
and  Cleopatra  "  \  (All  for  Love).  The  Kind  Keeper,  or  Mr. 
Limberham  (1678),  a  comedy,  he  professed  to  have  written 
as  "an  honest  satire  against  our  crying  sin  of  keeping." 
It  was  a  complete  failure — being  acted  but  three  nights. 
"The  crime,"  says  Dryden  in  his  dedication,  "for  which  it 
suffered,  was  that  which  is  objected  against  the  satires  of 
Juvenal,  that  it  expressed  too  much  of  the  vice  which  it 
decried."  But  he  will  not  remonstrate,  "for,"  he  con- 
tinues, "their  authority  is,  and  shall  be,  ever  sacred  to  me, 
as  much  absent  as  present,  and  in  all  alterations  of  their 
fortunes,  who  for  these  reasons  have  stopt  its  further 
appearance  on  the  theater."  2  Christy,  in  his  memoir  of 
Dryden,  suggests :  "  It  is  to  be  inferred  from  Dryden's  lan- 
guage that  strong  remonstrances  from  powerful  friends  of 
his  own,  probably  from  the  highest  placed  in  the  land,  led 
him  to  withdraw  this  piece.3  Since  keeping  was  the  vice 
made  popular  by  the  court,  this  play  is  first-rate  evidence 

but  as  the  world  goes  now,  'tis  very  hard  to  predicate  one  upon  the  other  ; 
and  'tis  yet  more  difficult  to  prove,  that  a  nobleman  can  be  a  friend  to 
poetry.  Were  it  not  for  two  or  three  instances  in  "Whitehall  and  in  the 
town,  the  poets  of  this  age  would  find  so  little  encouragement  of  their 
labors,  and  so  few  understanders,  that  they  might  have  leisure  to  turn 
pamphleteers,  and  augment  the  number  of  those  abominable  scribblers, 
who,  in  this  time  of  license,  abuse  the  press,  almost  every  day,  with  non- 
sense, and  railing  against  the  government."  Scott-Saintsbury,  vi,  8. 
^i,  152.  2  Scott-Saintsbury,  vi,  9.  3P.  xi. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  105 

that  Dryden  was,  at  the  time  of  its  writing,  in  a  state  of 
rebellion  against  his  royal  patron.  It  is  significant  that  it 
was  acted  at  the  Duke's  theater,  which  was  patronized  chiefly 
by  the  citizen  class. 

During  our  author's  second  period  his  plays  and  criticism  " 
were  given  over  to  the  exemplification  and  defense  of  the 
tastes  to  which  the  court  had  given  popularity.     Now  that  "' 
his  relations  with  the  court  had  altered  he  returned  both  in 
his  plays  and  in  his  criticism,  to  greater  sanity,  genuineness, 
and  real  poetic  spirit. 

It  was  in  the  prolog  to  Aureng-Zebe,  or  the  Great  Mogul 
(1675)  that  Dryden  first  proclaimed  his  new  faith ;  the 
theory  of  the  heroic  play,  the  admiration  for  rime  had 
gone,  and  love  of  Shakespeare  had  returned.  Two  years  ^ 
later,  in  the  Apology  for  Heroic  Poetry,  came  an  elaborate 
prose  statement  of  the  new  doctrines,  which,  after  all,  turn 
out  to  be  but  those  of  the  first  period  clarified  and  reinforced. 
One  who  comes  to  this  Apology  fresh  from  the  Defense  of  the 
Epilog  may  be  pardoned  for  wondering  if  the  two  works 
are  from  the  same  hand.  In  the  Defense  Dryden  taxed  all 
his  ingenuity  to  pick  flaws  in  the  works  of  the  Elizabethan 
masters ;  now,  bolstering  himself  up  with  numerous  quota- 
tions from  Longinus,  he  remonstrates  with  all  his  force 
against  carping  criticism.  The  critic,  so  he  maintains, 
should  pass  his  judgment  in  favor  of  the  sublime  genius 
that  sometimes  errs  rather  than  prefer  the  indifferent  author 
who  "makes  few  faults,  but  seldom  or  never  rises  to  any 
excellence."  And  then  follows  the  beautiful  passage,  loosely 
quoted  from  Longinus,  in  which  the  great  genius  is  likened 
to  a  man  of  large  possessions  who  "will  not  debase  himself 
to  the  management  of  every  trifle,"  and  the  correct  author, 
to  a  person  of  mean  fortune,  "  who  manages  his  store  with 
extreme  frugality,  or  rather  parsimony."  The  description 
of  the   "correct"  author  is  the  classic  denunciation  of  the 


O 


106  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

entire  tribe:  "This  kind  of  genius  writes  indeed  correctly. 
A  wary  man  he  is  in  grammar,  very  nice  as  to  solecism  or 
barbarism,  judges  to  a  hair  of  little  decencies,  knows  better 
than  any  man  what  is  not  to  be  written,  and  never  hazards 
himself  so  far  as  to  fall,  but  plods  on  deliberately,  and,  as  a 
grave  man  ought,  is  sure  to  put  his  staff  before  him ;  in 
short,  he  sets  his  heart  upon  it,  and  with  wonderful  care 
makes  his  business  sure ;  that  is,  in  plain  English,  neither  to 
be  blamed  or  praised."  ' 

Having,  in  the  first  paragraph  of  the  essay,  paid  a 
generous  tribute  to  Paradise  Lost,  "undoubtedly  one  of  the 
greatest,  most  noble,  and  most  sublime  poems  which  either 
this  age  or  nation  has  produced,"  Dryden  goes  on  to  make  a 
*  general  plea  for  the  freedom  of  the  poetic  imagination.  His 
opponents,  interpreting  the  Aristotelian  doctrine  of  imitation 
to  suit  their  taste,  would  keep  poetry  near  to  the  actualities 
of  life.  Dryden  holds  that  poetry  which  has  pleased  all 
ages  must  be  an  imitation  of  nature,  and  therefore  we  are 
\^  justified  in  giving  the  principle  the  most  liberal  interpreta- 
tion. That  is,  he  is  practically  throwing  the  principle  of 
imitation  overboard,  and  working  out  new  rules  on  the  basis 
of  art  history.  Relying  on  these  he  defends  bold  figures  of 
speech  and  the  use  of  fairies  and  other  supernatural  agencies ; 
in  particular  he'defends  Milton,  Cowley,  and  himself  against 
their  detractors.  And  with  full  assurance  of  victory  he  con- 
cludes :  "  but  all  reasonable  men  will  conclude  it  necessary, 
that  sublime  subjects  ought  to  be  adorned  with  the  sublimest, 
and  consequently  with  the  most  figurative  expressions."  2 
This  essay  reminds  one  strongly  of  the  Essay  of  Heroic 

1 1,  180.  In  reading  this  passage  one  should  remember  that  in  1671,  in 
the  preface  to  An  Evening' s  Love,  Dryden  wrote  :  "  I  think  there  is  no  folly 
so  great  in  any  poet  of  our  age,  as  the  superfluity  and  waste  of  wit  was  in 
some  of  our  predecessors." 

2 1,  190. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  107 

Plays  (1672),  but  in  reality  it  is  very  different.  In  the 
essay  of  1672  Dry  den  defended  the  heroic  play  with  all  its 
extravagances;  but  now,  in  1677,  he  is  defending  the  great 
epic  poets,  Homer,  Virgil,  and  Milton.  Ker  describes  the 
situation  exactly  :  "  Drydeu,  like  Tasso  before  him,  is  com- 
pelled to  stand  up  against  the  scholars  who  have  learned 
their  lesson  too  well;  it  is  as  if  he  foresaw  the  sterilizing 
influence  of  the  prose-understanding,  and  the  harm  that 
might  be  done  by  correctness  if  the  principles  of  correctness 
were  vulgarized." l  The  fact  that  here  for  the  first  time ¥ 
Dryden  draws  upon  Longinus  is  sufficient  to  show  that  a 
new  spirit  has  come  over  him. 

The  Heads  of  an  Answer  to  Rymer,  a  rough  outline  of  an 
intended  answer  to  Thomas  Rymer's  Tragedies  of  the  Last 
Age,  was  not  designed  for  publication.  Written)  like  the 
Essay  of  Dramaiie  Poesy,  without  any  possible  selfish  motive, 
we  are  justified  in  supposing  that  in  it  we  have  an  especially 
sincere  expression  of  opinion.  From  the  point  of  view  of  ^ 
the  similarity  of  the  circumstances  under  which  the  two 
works  were  composed,  it  is  interesting  to  notice  that  in  the 
Heads  of  an  Answer  Dryden  returns  very  definitely  to 
the  doctrines  of  the  earlier  essay.  Rymer,  a  rigid  scholastic, 
has  ruthlessly  examined  the  plays  of  Shakespeare  and 
Fletcher  in  the  light  furnished  by  the  strictest  pseudo-classic 
rules.  And  Dryden,  who,  in  1672,  was  himself  inclined  to 
carp  at  these  two,  now  takes  up  the  cudgels  in  their  defense. 

His  argument  as  a  whole  is  based  on  the  theory  of  the 
historical  development  of  the  drama  :  Aristotle's  experience 
was  necessarily  limited  to  the  Greek  theater,  hence  his  defi- 
nition of  a  play  is  too  narrow ;  if  English  plays  have  not 
the  beauties  of  those  of  Greece,  they  have  others — perhaps 
greater.     Referring  to  the  success  of  the   English  drama, 

1 1,  lviii. 


108  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

Dryden  says :  "And  one  reason  for  that  success  is,  in  my 
opinion,  this,  that  Shakespeare  and  Fletcher  have  written 
to  the  genius  of  the  age  and  nation  in  which  they  lived ;  for 
tho  nature,  as  he  objects,  is  the  same  in  all  places,  and 
reason  too  the  same,  yet  the  climate,  the  age,  the  disposition 
of  the  people,  to  whom  a  poet  writes,  may  be  so  different, 
that  what  pleased  the  Greeks  would  not  satisfy  an  English 
audience."  1 

In  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  it  will  be  remembered, 
in  attempting  to  define  the  quality  which  distinguished 
English  poetry  from  French,  Dryden  hit  upon  the  terms, 
"masculine  fancy  "  and  "spirit  in  the  writing."  Here  in 
the  Heads  of  an  Answer,  he  is  laboring  to  make  clear  the 
nature  of  the  same  quality;  and  the  terms  which  now  serve 
his  purpose,  e.  g.  "  the  genius  of  poetry  in  the  writing," 
carry  back  over  the  intervening  thirteen  years  to  the  earlier 
work.  Notice,  in  this  connection,  the  spirit  and  terminology 
of  the  following  passage  :  "Rapin  attributes  more  to  the 
dictio,  that  is,  to  the  words  and  discourse  of  a  tragedy,  than 
Aristotle  has  done,  who  places  them  in  the  last  rank  of 
beauties ;  perhaps  only  last  in  order,  because  they  are  the 
last  product  of  the  design.  .  .  .  Rapin's  words  are  remark- 
able :  It  is  not  the  admirable  intrigue,  the  surprising  events, 
and  the  extraordinary  incidents,  that  make  the  beauty  of  a 
tragedy ;  it  is  the  discourses,  when  they  are  natural  and  pas- 
sionate." 2 

Within  the  year  of  the  writing  of  the  Heads  of  an  Answer 
to  Rymer  came  also  the  production  of  All  for  Love,  or  the 
World  Well  Lost,  a  tragedy  on  the  subject  of  Antony  and 
Cleopatra,  avowedly  written  in  imitation  of  Shakespeare. 
Dryden's  characters  and  plot  are  not  up  to  the  Shakes- 
pearean standard ;  neither  can  his  blank  verse,  as  a  whole, 

1  Scott-Saintsbury,  xv,  385.  2  Scott-Saintsbury,  xv,  392. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITER  A-RY    CRITICISM.  109 

be  pronounced  equal  to  that  of  his  great  original.  But  it 
must  be  acknowledged  that  this  is  the  best  of  all  his  plays ; 
it  is  full  of  noble  scenes  and  of  poetical  passages  which  do 
not  suffer  by  comparison  with  the  best  in  English  literature. 
Here,  in  the  play  which  Dry  den  professedly  wrote  for  him- 
self, the  genuinely  romantic  spirit  has  replaced  the  mock 
heroic.  The  preface  which  introduced  this  play  is  chiefly 
remarkable  for  a  spirited  attack  on  the  conventionality  of 
French  literature ;  all  the  feeliug  which  in  the  two  preceding 
essays  was  directed  against  pedants  in  general  is  here  turned 
against  the  poets  of  France  and  their  English  imitators. 

In  this  period,  then,  during  which  Dryden  is  not  writing 
as  the  favorite  of  town  and  court,  during  which,  it  appears, 
he  is  even  cut  off  from  many  of  his  old  associations  and  put 
under  suspicion,  his  literary  productions  show  him  in  a 
state  of  revolt.  The  life  of  the  court  nauseates  him ;  the 
degenerate  heroic  drama,  as  it  is  carried  on  in  the  hands 
of  succeeding  favorites,  he  can  not  endure  ;  and  no  more  can 
he  tolerate  the  clean-cut  and  heartless  neoclassic  criticism 
as  he  sees  it  in  the  works  of  Rymer.  The  three  pieces  of 
criticism  which  mark  the  culmination  of  the  period  exhibit 
a  singular  unity  of  feeling.  In  all  of  them  Dryden  strikes 
out  squarely  counter  to  the  current  of  contemporary  opinion. 
In  all  of  them  he  warmly  upbraids  merely  rational  criti- 
cism ;  he  maintains  that  literary  types  should  be  left  free  to 
develop,  that  the  critic  should  draw  his  rules  from  literature 
rather  than  prescribe  laws  to  literature ;  he  contends  most 
of  all  for  the  spirit  of  poetry,  for  genius  in  literary  material 
as  against  all  the  conventions  of  form.  These  three  essays 
are,  perhaps,  the  most  remarkable  of  all  Dryden's  prose 
works.  Lacking,  often,  the  refined  spirit  and  elegant  form 
of  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  for  courage,  for  refreshing 
sincerity,  for  unconventional  originality,  they  can  hardly  be 
matched  from  Dryden's  other  critical  works,  or  from  the 
works  of  any  other  critic  of  Dryden's  time. 


110  WM.    E.    BOHN. 


The  Fourth  Peeiod. 


The  criticism  produced  by  Dryden  during  the  decade 
between  1680  and  1689  is  best  characterized  as  rationalistic. 
Here  we  find  well  formulated,  probably  for  the  first  time  in 
England,  that  common-sense  system  of  literary  production 
and  evaluation  which  had  been  so  well  organized  by  Boileau 
and  was  to  be  further  developed  by  Pope.  A  reading  of 
this  criticism  in  connection  with  Dry  den's  biography  imme- 
diately suggests  the  thought  that  his  theory  was,  during  this 
period,  very  definitely  related  to  the  literary  occupations  to 
which,  thro  the  pressure  of  economic  circumstances,  he 
was  forced  to  surrender  himself. 

During  Dryden' s  second  period  we  have  seen  him  the 
servant  of  a  court  which  demanded  amusement ;  during  his 
third  period  we  have  seen  him  cast  upon  his  own  resources ; 
but  during  the  period  under  consideration  we  find  him  in  a 
new  role ;  as  during  the  second  period,  he  is  the  servant  of  a 
court,  but  of  a  court  which  demands — not  amusement — but 
defense  against  its  enemies.  Dryden  entered  upon  his  fourth 
period  rather  poorer  than  usual.  The  King's  Theater,  in  the 
profits  of  which  he  had  had  a  share,  had  burnt  down  in  1672, 
and  his  income  had  suffered  in  consequence.  After  the  pro- 
duction of  All  for  Love  (1677—8)  he  quarreled  with  the  King's 
Company  and  the  contract  in  accordance  with  which  he  had 
shared  in  its  profits  was  abrogated.  The  complaint  in  the 
dedication  of  Aureng-Zebe  and  the  belief  that  his  pension 
had  been  cut  off,  show  at  least  that  it  was  irreguk  *y  paid. 
One  is  somewhat  surprised,  therefore,  to  learn  that  as  early 
as  1679  our  author  was  granted  by  the  king  a  special  annual 
pension  of  one  hundred  pounds,  and  that  in  1683  he  was 
appointed  collector  of  customs  for  the  port  of  London.  The 
Whigs,  representing  Protestantism,  were/becoming  more  and 


V"T£      w*^  *"^ 


JOHN    DEYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  Ill 

more  of  a  menace  to  the  royal  faction ;  and  in  his  hour  of 
need  Charles  did  not  disdain  to  assure  himself  of  Dryden's 
support.  And  Dryden,  as  we  have  seen,  was  in  no  position 
to  refuse  to  give  his  services.  In  1681  our  author  produced 
upon  the  stage  The  Spanish  Friar,  his  "Protestant  play" — 
surely  no  evidence  of  loyalty.  But  later  in  the  same  year 
he  published  Absalom  and  Aehitophel  •  and  from  that  time  to 
the  death  of  Charles  II,  in  1G85,  there  was  no  interruption  in 
Dryden's  devoted  service ;  the  king  was  defended  against  all 
his  enemies,  the  church  of  England  against  all  the  sectaries. 
But  during  this  time  important  changes  were  taking 
place  in  the  life  of  the  court.  The  Catholic  Duke  of 
York  was  the  heir  apparent,  and  the  Duchess  of  York 
shared  his  religious  faith.  Charles  himself  was  under 
suspicion  of  a  leaning  in  the  direction  of  Catholicism.  The 
tide  was  unmistakably  setting  in  the  direction  of  the  church  of 
Rome,  and  the  author  of  the  "Protestant  Play"  could  hardly 
be  expected  to  remain  independent  of  its  influence.  The 
fact  that  Dryden  turned  Catholic  about  the  time  of  the 
succession  of  James  II,  when  a  change  in  religion  was 
patently  advantageous  to  him,  has  been  interpreted  by  more 
than  one  of  his  biographers  as  evidence  of  rank  turn-coatism. 
The  answer  to  these  has  been  found  in  the  fact  that  as  early 
as  1682,  in  the  Religio  Laid,  Dryden  gave  unmistakable 
evidence  of  a  genuine  leaning  in  the  direction  of  Catholi- 
cism.1 It  seems  to  me  that  we  have  here  merely  another  case 
to  show  Dryden's  sensitiveness  to  his  environment.  No  one 
who  sympathetically  reads  the  Religio  Laid  or  Dryden's 
later  religious  poems  can  doubt  the  sincerity  of  his  eonver- 
sion  :  neither  can  anyone  who  has  taken  into  account  the 
changing  atmosphere  of  the  court  imagine  that  this  con- 
version   was    quite    independent    of    our    author's    milieu. 

1  Cf .  Saintsbury,  Biography  of  Dryden,  p.  101. 


112  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

Dryden's  world  gradually  changed,  and  he  himself,  with 
perfect  sincerity,  gradually  changed  with  it. 

As  one  result  of  Dry  den's  religious  conversion  he  was 
continued  in  office  as  the  chief  literary  representative  of  the 
court,  his  pension  of  one  hundred  pounds  being  guaranteed 
him  by  a  royal  patent.  In  1686  he  published  his  Defense 
of  Papers  written  by  the  late  King  and  the  Duchess  of  York — 
which  papers  seemed  to  indicate  (a  fact  now  much  to  the 
purpose)  that  Charles  II  had  been  at  heart  a  Catholic.  And 
from  this  time  down  to  the  dethronement  of  James  II  in 
1688-89  Dry  den  served  his  second  master  as  faithfully  as 
he  had  served  his  first. 

The  mere  labor  demanded  by  Dryden's  new  position  of 
chief  apologist  for  the  crown,  was  tremendous.  In  Ker's 
list  of  his  publications  there  are  to  be  found  within  the 
limits  of  this  period  the  titles  of  fourteen  works  which 
formed  part  of  his  public  service.  Among  these  are  regis- 
tered, first  of  all,  works  like  the  translation  of  Maimburg's 
History  of  the  League  and  the  Defense  of  Papers  written  by 
the  late  King  and  the  Duchess  of  York,  long  and  dreary  pieces 
of  prose  which  must  have  meant  to  their  author  weary 
months  of  drudgery.  But  the  chief  works  of  the  list  are  the 
satirical  and  didactic  masterpieces :  Absalom  and  Achitophel 
(1681),  The  Medal  (1682),  MacFlecknoe  (1682),  Absalom  and 
Achitophel,  Part  II  (1682),  Beligio  Laid  (1682),  and  The 
Hind  and  the  Panther  (1687).  For  us  it  is  merely  necessary 
to  notice  two  things  with  regard  to  these  supreme  works. 
In  the  first  place  not  a  single  one  of  them  was  introduced 
with  a  critical  dissertation  of  great  importance.  The  pro- 
duction of  this  form  of  literature  was  not  calculated  to  keep 
alive  in  our  author's  mind  his  former  interest  in  the  vital 
problems  of  esthetics.  Even  the  mere  quantity  of  his 
criticism  was  cut  down ;  we  have  only  four  slender  pieces 
to  represent  what  was   Dryden's  most  productive  literary 


JOHN    DRYDEN's   LITERARY    CRITICISM.  113 

period.  The  other  point  which  demands  our  attention  is 
the  fact  that  satire  belongs  distinctly  to  the  rationalistic, 
rather  than  to  the  romantic,  consciousness ;  to  the  period  of 
Pope,  rather  than  to  the  period  of  Shakespeare.  Since, 
then,  the  characteristic  poetic  production  of  this  period  links 
Dryden  to  the  eighteenth  century,  rather  than  to  the  six- 
teenth, one  is  prepared  to  expect  in  the  critical  essays  a 
predominantly  rationalistic  tone. 

Before  entering  upon  a  discussion  of  the  characteristic 
criticism  of  the  fourth  period  it  is  necessary  to  notice  an 
essay  which  is  clearly  transitional.  In  1679  Dryden  pub- 
lished Troilus  and  Cressida,  rather  an  "  improvement "  of 
Shakespeare's  play  of  the  same  name  than  a  noble  imitation 
like  Ail  for  Love.  And  with  this  play,  which  in  itself 
seemed  to  indicate  a  dying  down  of  poetical  fervor,  he 
published  his  Preface  containing  the  Grounds  of  Griticiwn  in 
Tragedy — a  most  interesting  composite  of  the  antagonistic 
spirits  of  the  third  and  fourth  periods.  In  the  introduction, 
although  a  high  regard  for  Shakespeare  is  expressed,  the 
chief  emphasis  is  laid  upon  his  petty  faults ;  his  phrases  are, 
some  of  them,  "  scarce  intelligible,"  others,  "  ungrammatical 
and  coarse ; "  his  style  is  "  so  pestered  with  figurative 
expressions,  that  it  is  as  affected  as  it  is  obscure."  The 
essay  on  The  Grounds  of  Criticism  in  Tragedy  is  introduced 
with  a  formal  outline  :  our  author  thinks  it  would  be  neither 
unprofitable  nor  unpleasant  to  inquire  "(1)  how  far  we 
ought  to  imitate  our  poets,  Shakespeare  and  Fletcher,  in  their 
tragedies ;  and  this  will  occasion  another  inquiry,  (2)  how 
those  two  writers  differ  among  themselves."  But  in  order  to 
prosecute  these  investigations  he  will  first  attempt  "  to  dis- 
cover the  grounds  and  reasons  of  all  criticism,  applying 
them  in  this  place  only  to  tragedy.1 "     Then  there  follows 

1 1,  207. 


114  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

one  of  the  most  carefully  reasoned  of  all  Dryden's  essays. 
Beginning  with  Aristotle's  definition  of  a  play  our  author 
proceeds  in  an  abstract,  formal  manner  to  discuss  the  action, 
the  manners,  the  characters,  and  the  passions.  After  the 
,  regular  discussion  of  each  heading  Shakespeare  and  Fletcher 
"*  are  brought  up  for  comparison,  and  one  who  has  recently 
read  the  Heads  of  an  Answer  may  well  be  surprised  to 
discover  that  they  are  often  measured  by  the  classical 
standard  as  ruthlessly  as  Rymer  himself  could  have  wished. 
But,  happily,  this  essay  is  one  of  those  which  are  remark- 
able for  their  "  purple  patches."  It  is  evident  from  one  of 
these  that  tho  Dryden's  new  formalism  can  make  no 
room  for  Shakespeare,  the  old  love  of  him  still  survives. 

In  the  preface  to  Dryden's  translation  of  Ovid's  epistles 
(1680)  we  have  the  first  piece  of  criticism  perfectly  repre- 
sentative of  the  fourth  period;  it  is  representative  both  in  its 
brevity  and  in  its  thoroly  prosaic  tone.  The  only  really 
significant  passage  in  it  is  one  in  which  Ovid  is  guardedly 
praised  for  the  vivacity  of  his  poetry,  but  roundly  scored  for 
not  having  been  a  better  master  of  his  wit.  "  Nothing  too 
much,"  is  our  author's  law,  and  it  is  applied  especially  to 
wit,  to  eloquence,  to  the  inward  fire  that  may  now  and  then 
strain  a  conventionality. 

In  the  dedication  of  The  Spanish  Friar  (1681)  we  might 
expect  a  different  feeling.  The  play  which  it  introduced 
was  written,  not  to  support  the  king,  but  to  catch  the  public 
ear  ; l  and,  despite  its  faults,  one  must  confess  that  it  has  in 
it  some  of  the  life  of  real  comedy.  Here,  then,  if  anywhere, 
we  might  expect  a  return  to  the  standards  of  1678.  But 
what  do  we  find?    First  of  all,  a  criticism,  searching  and  just, 

xIt  must  be  remembered  tbat  at  this  time,  just  after  the  "Popish  Plots," 
the  Protestant  party  was  so  strong  that  Dryden  was  risking  nothing ;  and, 
on  the  other  hand,  in  case  of  a  Protestant  triumph  his  anti-catholic  play 
would  have  opened  up  to  him  a  way  into  the  new  court. 


johx  dryden's  literary  criticism.  115 

of  our  author's  own  heroic  plays :  they  cry  vengeance  upon 
him  for  their  extravagance,  and  he  wishes  them  heartily  in 
the  fire.  His  only  excuse  for  them  is  that  they  were  bad 
enough  to  please  (/.  c.  to  please  Charles  II) ;  but  for  the 
future  he  is  resolved  to  settle  himself  no  reputation  "  by  the 
applause  of  fools."  The  effect  of  the  "prose-understanding" 
is  not  entirely  evil;  if  it  condemns  the  romantic  by  judicious 
strictures  and  faint  praise,  it  damns  the  heroic  utterly. 

Dryden  was  too  philosophical  to  rest  content  with  indivi- 
dual literary  judgments ;  he  must  give  his  theory  abstract 
statement.  It  is  significant  that  when  he  comes  to  do  this  Y 
he  takes  his  figure  from  architecture,  of  all  the  arts  the  one, 
perhaps,  in  which  a  riotous  fancy  can  have  least  place  : 
"  But  as  in  a  room  contrived  for  state,  the  height  of  the  roof 
should  bear  a  proportion  to  the  area ;  so,  in  the  heightenings 
of  poetry,  the  strength  and  vehemence  of  the  figures  should 
be  suited  to  the  occasion,  the  subject,  and  the  persons." x  Pro- 
priety of  thoughts  and  words  is  the  chief  virtue  of  a  play. 
Here,  it  thus  appears,  even  in  the  dedication  of  a  popular 
play,  Dryden's  new  deity,  good  sense,  is  the  supreme  god. 

In  the  preface  to  Sylvae  (1685)  we  find  that  after  a  lapse 
of  four  years  our  author's  esthetic  creed  has  remained 
unchanged.  With  great  show  of  erudition,  but  without 
touching  upon  a  single  vital  literary  problem,  he  discusses 
the  four  authors  he  has  been  translating.  In  the  one  passage 
which  has  real  significance  he  treats  Cowley  as  he  treated 
Ovid  in  the  preface  of  1680.  It  is  true  that  Cowley  had  the 
soul  of  poetry,  the  "  warmth  and  vigor  of  fancy,"  "  but  he 
lacked  somewhat  of  equal  thoughts,"  and  "  somewhat  of  the 
purity  of  English."  And  after  he  has  applied  his  unvarying 
measure,  Dryden  peevishly  demands  what  rules  of  morality  or 
respect  he  has  broken  :  "There  are  few  poets  who  deserve  to 
be  models  in  all  they  write." 2    Horace  himself  could  hardly 

1i,  247.  2i,  268. 


116  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

have  excelled  this  for  classic  coolness ;  one  is  instantly  re- 
minded of  nodding  Homer.  There  is  nothing  here,  except, 
of  course,  the  over-sensitive  apology  for  irreverence,  which, 
so  far  as  theory  is  concerned,  might  not  have  been  written 
by  Pope. 

But  it  is  in  the  preface  to  Albion  and  Albanius  (1685)  that 
Dryden  undertakes  the  formal  exposition  of  his  doctrine. 
The  essay  begins  with  a  highly  significant  definition  of  wit. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy 
(1665)  Dryden  wrote,  referring  to  Jonson:  "I  must  acknowl- 
edge him  the  more  correct  poet,  but  Shakespeare  the  greater 
wit."  l  Wit,  in  this  connection,  was  evidently  used  to  signify 
the  possession  of  a  prolific  poetic  genius,  or  an  abundance  of 
poetic  material.  In  the  preface  to  Annus  Mirabilis  (1666) 
this  notion  was  decidedly  modified:  "  wit-writing "  was  there 
defined  as  a  nimble  spaniel,  which  "beats  over  and  ranges 
through  the  field  of  memory,  till  it  springs  the  quarry  it 
hunted  after;"2  and  "wit- written"  was  described  as  that 
which  is  "well  defined,  the  happy  result  of  thought,  or  pro- 
duct of  imagination."  This  confusing  division  is  evidently  a 
compromise ;  wit  is  thought  of  as  being  at  once  the  creative 
quality  of  the  imagination  and  the  well-defined  product  of 
the  judgment.  In  1677,  in  the  Apology  for  Heroic  Poetry, 
Dryden  formally  defined  wit  as  "a  propriety  of  thoughts  and 
words,"  3  but  used  this  two-edged  definition  to  show  that  in 
the  treatment  of  great  subjects  the  poetic  imagination  should 
be  allowed  free  rein.  But  now,  in  the  preface  to  Albion  and 
Albanius,  he  develops  this  definition  and  attempts  to  show 
on  the  strength  of  it  that  all  poetic  beauty  depends  upon  the 
**  exercise  of  the  judgment.  Thus  in  the  course  of  twenty 
years  one  of  the  most  important  terms  of  seventeenth  cen- 
tury criticism,  following  the  evolution  of  our  author's  mind, 

1  Cf.  ante,  p.  72.  '  Cf.  ante,  p.  83.  3 1,  190. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  117 

has  exactly  reversed  its  meaning.  With  its  new  definition 
it  is  made  to  cover  a  complete  system  of  poetic  theory.  The 
thoughts  are  to  be  proper  to  the  subject,  the  words,  to  the 
thoughts,  "  and  from  both  of  these,  if  they  be  judiciously 
performed,  the  delight  of  poetry  results."  '  Pope,  in  the 
Essay  on  Criticism,  seems  merely  to  return  an  echo  : 

"Expression  is  the  dress  of  thought,  and  still 
Appears  more  decent  as  more  suitable." 

The  criticism  of  this  period,  it  thus  appears,  is  rational- v 
istic.  In  its  general  spirit  it  bears  some  resemblance  to 
that  of  the  second  period,  nevertheless  the  two  should  be 
sharply  distinguished.  The  critical  theory  of  the  second 
period,  it  will  be  remembered,  was  characterized  as  pseudo- 
neoclassic ;  that  of  the  period  now  under  consideration  is 
best  defined  as  English  rationalistic.  The  English  heroic 
play  which  furnished  the  occasion  for  the  characteristic 
criticism  of  the  second  period  was  a  natural  outgrowth  of 
the  life  of  the  Restoration,  and  with  the  passing  of  that  life, 
it,  too,  past  away  with  all  its  related  theory.  Even  before 
it  had  reached  its  zenith  there  had  appeared  in  England  the 
beginnings  of  a  school  of  critics,  best  represented  by  Hobbes, 
who  introduced  into  their  thinking  about  literature  the  spirit 
and  doctrines  of  English  sensationalistic  philosophy.  The 
French  neoclassicists,  we  have  seen,  made  literature  rational 
and  intelligible  by  working  it  out  in  accordance  with  an 
a  priori  scheme  attributed  to  the  ancients.  The  English 
rationalists,  thorogoing  sensationalists  in  philosophy,  achieved 
practically  the  same  result  by  bringing  art  down  to  the 
actualities    of    life.2      To    them   prose    furnished   an   ideal 

li,  270. 

"2Cf.  Preface  to  Ovid's  Epistle,  I,  233.  Here,  speaking  of  Ovid's  descrip- 
tions of  the  passions,  Dryden  says  he  needs  no  other  judges  of  them  than 
the  generality  of  his  readers  :    ' '  for,  all  passions  being  inborn  with  us,  we 


118  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

form  and,  in  the  eighteenth  century,  the  realistic  novel,  an 
ideal  content :  even  in  Dryden's  day  they  were  dubbed 
"  prose-critics."  Under  the  predominance  of  these  prose- 
critics  the  heroic  play  fell  under  constantly  increasing 
condemnation.  Dryden's  unequivocal  denunciation  of  it  in 
the  dedication  of  The  Spanish  Friar,  furnishes  a  measure 
of  his  evolution  :  during  his  fourth  period  he  was,  at  least 
in  his  general  spirit,  a  rationalist.  The  worship  of  good 
sense  had  become  his  controling  motive. 

This  rationalism  is  precisely  what  an  examination  of 
Dryden's  life  during  this  period  would  lead  one  to  expect. 
We  have  seen  him  constrained  by  circumstances  to  throw 
the  chief  energy  saved  from  uninspiring  hack-work  into  a 
"  series  of  poetical  satires.  The  first  result  of  this  new  direc- 
tion of  his  activity  was  naturally  a  diminution  of  his  interest 
in  critical  problems.  But  the  second  result  was  more 
important.  A  man  like  Dryden,  versatile,  easily  adapting 
himself  to  new  conditions,  could  hardly  be  imagined  divid- 
ing his  mental  life ;  doing  his  daily  stint  of  toil  for  the 
royal  cause  and  then  taking  up  the  consideration  of  literary 
problems  with  his  old  romantic  fervor.  On  the  contrary, 
he  gave  himself  up  wholly  to  the  required  labor.  So 
thoroly  did  he  fuse  his  personality  with  the  cause  of  his 
party  that  in  MacFlecknoe,  passages  of  Absalom  and  Achi- 
tophel,  and  in  other  poems,  he  paid  at  once  his  own  scores 

^  and  those  of  the  king.     Satire  had  become  his  natural  mode 

...  ... 

of  expression.     But  satire  is  itself  but  a  sort  of  criticism  ; 

it  has  always  been  the  form  assumed  by  the  highly  trained, 

versifying  prose-understanding.     If,  then,  while  satire  was 

Dryden's    natural    mode    of   expression    his    critical    essays 

are  almost  equally  judges  when  we  are  concerned  in  the  representation  of 
them."  And  a  little  later  he  criticizes  Ovid  for  leaving  "  the  imitation  of 
nature,  and  the  cooler  dictates  of  his  judgment,  for  the  false  applause  of 
fancy. ' ' 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  119 

became  eminently   rationalistic,   it  is   merely  because  they 
were  of  a  piece  with  his  whole  mental  life.1 

The  Fifth  Period. 

The  fifth  period  of  Dryden's  critical  development  includes, 
approximately,  the  last  decade  of  his  life.  With  the  revolu- 
tion of  1688-9  our  author  lost  at  once  his  offices  and  his 
pension;  but  what  was  apparently  a  crushing  reverse  proved  o 
to  be  a  boon — at  once  to  Dryden  and  to  English  literature. 
His  position  now  became  practically  that  of  a  free  man  of 
letters.  And  in  this  character  he  was  left  at  liberty  to  give 
himself  up  to  literary  labors  of  his  own  choice.  Under  these 
circumstances  his  critical  faculty  naturally  regained  free  play. 
The  result  is  noticeable,  first  of  all,  in  the  imposing  amount 
of  criticism  written  during  this  period.  But  the  quality  is 
more  remarkable  than  the  quantity ;  beginning  the  period  as 
a  rationalist,  Dryden  gradually  developed  in  the  direction  of 
the  theory  and  feeling  of  the  first  and  third  periods.  The 
old  love  for  the  spirit  of  great  literature  returned,  and  more 
and  more  dominated  the  good-sense  mood  and  method.  The  '«' 
criticism  is  distinguished  from  that  of  the  first  and  third 
periods  by  a  broader,  steadier  grasp  of. esthetic  problems  and 
by  a  beautiful  evenness  of  feeling.     It  is,  to  be  sure,  a  sort 

1  Perhaps  the  reader  does  not  need  to  be  again  reminded  that  I  do  not 
pretend  to  have  accounted  completely  for  all  the  differences  between  the 
various  periods  of  Dryden's  critical  development.  The  causes  for  the 
transition  from  the  third  to  the  fourth  period  seem  to  have  been  especially 
complex.  I  have  my  attention  drawn  to  the  fact  that  during  the  third 
period  Dryden  leaned  pretty  heavily  on  Rapin  and  that,  although  he  was 
using  his  contemporary  French  critic  in  the  support  of  romanticism,  Rapin 
may  have  influenced  him  in  the  direction  of  rationalism.  Rapin  had  after 
all  more  affinity  to  Rymer  than  to  Dryden.  It  is  not  impossible  that  our 
author's  very  attacks  on  Rymer  may  have  reacted  in  favor  of  Rymer' s  own 
doctrines. 


120  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

of  classicism  which  we  have  here,  but  a  deep  and  humanized 
classicism.  ' 

After  the  downfall  of  James  II  our  author,  now  nearly 
sixty  years  old,  was  cast  out  to  write  for  a  living.  During 
the  first  years  of  the  period  he  was  still  partially  dependent, 
but  his  dependence  was  of  a  kind  which  did  not  entail  actual 
servitude.  Don  Sebastian  (1690)  he  dedicated  to  the  Earl 
of  Leicester,  a  supporter  of  the  new  government.  In  the 
dedication  of  Amphitrion  (1690)  to  Sir  William  Leveson 
Gower,  also  a  revolutionist,  he  wrote  :  "  And  as,  since  this 
wonderful  revolution,  I  have  begun  with  the  best  pattern  of 
humanity,  the  Earl  of  Leicester,  I  shall  continue  to  follow 
the  same  method,  in  all  to  whom  I  shall  address ;  and 
endeavor  to  pitch  on  such  only  as  have  been  pleased  to  own 
me  in  this  ruin  of  my  small  fortune ;  who,  though  they  are 
of  a  contrary  opinion  themselves,  yet  blame  not  me  for 
adhering  to  a  lost  cause,  and  judging  for  myself,  what  I 
cannot  choose  but  judge,  so  long  as  I  am  a  patient  sufferer, 
and  no  disturber  of  the  government."  l  One  of  Dryden's 
most  generous  friends  was  Charles,  Earl  of  Dorset  and 
Middlesex,  after  the  revolution  appointed  to  the  post  of 
Lord  Chamberlain.  Addressing  to  this  nobleman  his  Dis- 
course concerning  the  Original  and  Progress  of  Satire  (1693), 
Dryden  wrote  :  "  I  must  ever  acknowledge,  to  the  honor  of 
your  lordship,  and  the  eternal  memory  of  your  charity,  that, 
since  this  revolution,  wherein  I  have  patiently  suffered  the  ruin 
of  my  small  fortune,  and  the  loss  of  that  poor  subsistence 
which  I  had  from  two  kings,  whom  I  had  served  more  faith- 
fully than  profitably  to  myself;  then  your  Lordship  was 
pleased,  out  of  no  other  motive  than  your  nobleness,  without 
any  desert  of  mine,  or  the  least  solicitation  from  me,  to 
make  me  a  most  bountiful  present,  which  at  that  time,  when 

1  Scott-Saintsbury,  vin,  7. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  121 

I  was  most  in  want  of  it,  came  most  seasonably  and  unex- 
pectedly to  my  relief.  ...  I  must  not  presume  to  defend 
the  cause  for  which  I  suffer,  because  your  Lordship  is 
engaged  against  it ;  but  the  more  you  are  so,  the  greater 
is  my  obligation  to  you,  for  your  laying  aside  all  the  con- 
siderations of  factions  and  parties,  to  do  an  action  of  pure 
disinterested  charity." 1  Dryden's  patrons  were,  it  thus 
appears,  persons  who  were  drawn  to  him  either  out  of 
personal  regard  or  because  of  an  interest  in  letters  :  being, 
most  of  them,  at  least,  opposed  to  our  author  in  politics, 
they  could  not  ask  political  services.  Dryden's  relations 
with  them  were  always  dignified  and  honorable.  The  same 
can  be  said  of  his  attitude  toward  the  government.  In  his 
dedication  of  the  Aeneis  (1697),  about  to  discuss  Virgil's 
relations  with  Augustus,  he  remarked  by  way  of  introduc- 
tion :  "  I  shall  continue  to  speak  my  thoughts  like  a  free- 
born  subject,  as  I  am  ;  though  such  things,  perhaps,  as  no 
Dutch  commentator  could,  and  I  am  sure  no  Frenchman 
durst."  2 

This  honorable  attitude  toward  patrons  and  government 
is  at  least  partially  to  be  explained  from  the  fact  that 
Dryden  had  now  thrown  himself  chiefly  upon  the  support 
of  the  rapidly  increasing  readiug  public.  It  is  true  that  in 
1691  he  wrrote  a  panegyric,  Eleanora,  on  the  deceased 
Countess  of  Abdingdon,  a  person  whom  he  acknowledges 
never  to  have  seen,  and  that  he  received  for  the  performance 
of  this  task  a  fee  of  five  hundred  pounds.  But  the  transla- 
tions wTere  the  characteristic  works  of  this  period,  and  it  is 
evident  that  they  became  more  and  more  remunerative.  The 
translation  of  Virgil  (1697),  as  appears  from  a  letter  to 
William  Walsh,3  was  published  by  subscription  :  a  hundred 
and  two  copies,  "having  an  hundred  and  two  brass  cuts, 

'11,38.  2  ii,  174.  3Scott-Saintsbury,  xvm,  191. 


v 


122  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

with  the  coat  of  arms  of  the  subscriber  to  each  cut,"  were 
subscribed  for  at  five  guineas  apiece ;  another  lot  were  taken 
at  two  guineas  the  copy.  In  a  letter  to  Jacob  Tonson ' 
Dryden  stated  that  he  had  just  finished  the  seventh  Aeneid 
and  expected  soon  to  start  the  eighth,  and  continued : 
"when  that  is  finished,  I  expect  fifty  pounds  in  good 
silver."  The  number  of  books  for  which  this  sum  was  to 
be  received  is  not  clear.  A  little  later  in  the  same  letter 
Dryden  added  :  "  but  the  thirty  shillings  upon  every  book 
remains  with  me."  Pope  had  heard  that  the  Virgil  transla- 
tion as  a  whole  brought  Dryden  the  sum  of  1,200  pounds. 
For  the  Fables  (1700),  according  to  a  signed  agreement  still 
extaut,2  Dryden  was  to  receive  from  Tonson  the  sum  of  three 
hundred  pounds.3 

In  connection  with  our  author's  changed  position  there  is 
noticeable  a  general  elevation  of  his  moral  standards.  This 
is  to  be  remarked,  first  of  all,  in  his  attitude  toward  his  art. 
In  his  dedication  of  the  Examen  Poeticum  (1693),  after  a 
discussion  of  the  corruption  of  governments,  he  continued  : 
"  These  considerations  have  given  me  a  kind  of  contempt  for 
those  who  have  risen  by  unworthy  ways.  I  am  not  ashamed 
to  be  little,  when  I  see  them  so  infamously  great ;  neither  do 
I  know  why  the  name  of  poet  should  be  dishonorable  to  me, 
if  I  am  truly  one,  as  I  hope  I  am  ;  for  I  will  never  do 
anything  that  will  dishonor  it."  4  In  Dryden's  view  of  the 
moral  aspects  of  literature,  also,  there  took  place  a  notable 
alteration.  In  the  last  paragraph  of  his  last  critical  work,  the 
preface  to  the  Fables,  he  replied  to  Jeremy  Collier's  attack  on 
him  :  "  I  shall  say  the  less  of  Mr.  Collier,  because  in  many 
things  he  has  taxed  me  justly ;  and  I  have  pleaded  guilty  to 
all  thoughts  and  expressions  of  mine,  which  can  be  truly 

'Ibid,,  123.  *  Ibid.,  201.  3Cf.  Beljame,  pp.  198  3. 

4 ii,  2. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  123 

argued  of  obscenity,  profaneness,  or  immorality,  and  retract 
them.  If  he  be  my  enemy,  let  him  triumph;  if  he  be  my 
friend,  as  I  have  given  him  no  personal  reason  to  be  other- 
wise, he  will  be  glad  of  my  repentance."  l 

As  to  our  author's  literary  activity  under  the  new  circum- 
stances, the  first  thing  to  demand  notice  is  a  decline  in  his 
dramatic  production  and  a  consequent  falling  off  of  interest 
in  the  problems  of  the  stage.  The  five  plays  which  came 
from  his  pen  between  1690  and  1694  attained  dramatic  and 
literary  merit  to  a  rapidly  diminishing  degree.  At  the  begin- 
ning of  this,  his  last  period  of  play  writing,  Dryden  wrote  : 
"  Having  been  longer  acquainted  with  the  stage  than  any 
other  poet  now  living,  and  having  observed  how  difficult  it 
was  to  please;  that  the  humors  of  comedy  were  almost  spent; 
that  love  and  honor  (the  mistaken  topics  of  tragedy)  were 
quite  worn  out ;  that  the  theaters  could  not  support  their  ' 
charges ;  that  the  audience  forsook  them  ;  that  young  men, 
without  learning,  set  up  for  judges,  and  that  they  talked 
loudest  who  understood  the  least ;  all  these  discouragements 
had  not  only  weaned  me  from  the  stage,  but  had  also  given 
me  a  loathing  for  it.  But  enough  of  this  :  the  difficulties 
continue ;  they  increase ;  and  I  am  still  condemned  to  dig 
in  those  exhausted  mines."2  And  in  1692  he  protested; 
"  Nobody  can  imagine  that,  in  my  declining  age,  I  write 
willingly,  or  that  I  am  desirous  of  exposing,  at  this  time  of 
day,  the  small  reputation  which  I  have  gotten  on  the  theater. 
The  subsistence  which  I  had  from  the  former  government  is 
lost;  and  the  reward  I  have  from  the  stage  is  so  little,  that 
it  is  not  worth  my  labor."3  The  story  of  Dryden' s  dramatic^ 
degeneration,  then,  may  be  summed  up  as  follows.  In 
1690,  having  been  cast  upon  the  resources  of  his  pen,  he 
turned  to  the  public,  especially  to  the  citizen  class,  which, 

1  n,  272.  2 Scott-Saintsbury,  vn,  307.  5  Ibid.,  vra,  221. 


124  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

with  the  coming  of  William  and  Mary,  had  gained  a  decided 
ascendency.  The  public  was  most  easily  reached  thro 
the  theater;  hence  Don  Sebastian  (1690),  worked  out  with 
extraordinary  care.  But  Dryden  soon  discovered  that  times 
were  changed.  Citizen  morality  was  more  and  more  making 
itself  felt,  and  plays  were  more  and  more  subjected  to 
sharpest  criticism.1  In  fact  the  theater  seemed  to  be  sinking 
into  a  certain  decline.  Thus  dramatic  work,  never  to  Dry- 
den's  taste,  grew  constantly  more  irksome ;  and  at  last, 
according  to  his  own  statement,  the  economic  motive  for 
'"*  continuing  it  well  nigh  disappeared.  But  for  us  the  impor- 
tant thing  to  notice  is,  that  Dryden  lost  interest  in  dramatic 
problems.  Not  one  of  the  five  plays  of  this  period  is  pre- 
ceded by  a  critical  dissertation  of  any  importance.  The 
chauge  which  began  in  1684  with  the  publication  of  Miscel- 
lany Poems  is  now  complete,  and  it  is  chiefly  in  connection 
with  his  translations  that  we  must  henceforth  follow  the 
development  of  Dryden's  critical  theory. 

The  translations  of  this  period  include  selections  from 
Juvenal,  Persius,  and  Ovid,  the  works  of  Virgil,  and  the 
so-called  fables  from  Homer,  Boccacio,  and  Chaucer.  Four 
of  the  five  volumes  in  which  these  translations  appeared 
Dryden  introduced  with  critical  prefaces.  Occasionally, 
notably  in  the  dedication  of  the  Examen  Poetieum  (1693), 
he  wandered  back  into  the  discussion  of  the  drama,  but  for 
the  most  part  his  attention  was  given  up  to  the  poetic  forms, 
especially  to  the  epic.  A  chronological  list  of  the  transla- 
tions of  the  last  seven  years  of  Dryden's  life  shows  that  his 
interest  developed  steadily  in  the  direction  of  really  poetic 
appreciation.     After  his  long  period  of  satire  writing  Juvenal 

TCf.  James  Wright :  Historia  Histrionica  (1699)  ;  An  Apology  for  the  life 
of  the  Golly  Cibber  by  himself,  ed.  byEobert  W.  Lowe,  London,  1889,  i,  187; 
Beljame,  Le  Public  et  lesHommes  de  Lettres,  2nd  ed.,  1897,  pp.  198-224,  and 
244-59. 


JOHN   DRYDEN's    LITERARY   CRITICISM.  125 

may  naturally  have  interested  him ;  but,  left  free  to  follow 
his  literary  impulse,  he  translated  Virgil,  whose  formal  vir- 
tues few  have  been  able  to  appreciate  more  sincerely,  and 
during  his  last  years  worked  over  with  amazing  freedom  and 
spirit  selections  from  Homer,  Boccacio,  and  Chaucer.1  Thus 
the  development  of  his  criticism  during  this  period  seems  to 
correspond  to  a  development  in  his  poetical  activity. 

The  first  important  critical  work  of  this  period  is, 
naturally  enough,  on  satire.  A  Discourse  concerning  the 
Original  and  Progress  of  Satire,  published  in  1693  with  a 
translation  of  the  satires  of  Juvenal,  is  a  long  and  formal 
treatise  liberally  padded  with  borrowed  learning.  Dryden 
carefully  announces  his  purpose  to  give,  "  from  the  best 
authors,  the  origin,  the  antiquity,  the  growth,  the  change, 
and  the  completement  of  satire  among  the  Romans ;  to 
describe,  if  not  define,  the  nature  of  that  poem,  with  its 
several  qualifications  and  virtues,  together  with  the  several 
sorts  of  it ;  to  compare  the  excellencies  of  Horace,  Persius, 
and  Juvenal,  and  show  the  particular  manner  of  their 
satires  ;  and,  lastly,  to  give  an  account  of  this  new  way  of 
version,  which  is  attempted  in  our  performance."  2  Forti- 
fied with  an  imposing  list  of  authorities,  Dryden  executes 
his  plan  with  more  than  customary  method  and  care.  Only 
in    the    wanderings    of    his    introduction    does    he    express 

1  It  is  to  be  regretted  that  studies  of  Dryden's  translations  do  not  furnish 
sufficient  material  to  warrant  a  generalization  as  to  his  tendency  as  trans- 
lator. It  seems  extremely  probable  that  he  allowed  himself  constantly  in- 
creasing liberties  with  his  originals.  Francis  H.  Pughe,  after  an  examina- 
tion of  a  part  of  the  material  involved,  comes  to  the  following  conclusion  : 
' '  Wir  sehen  also,  kurz  gesagt,  Dryden  am  Anfang  seiner  Uebersetzer- 
thiitigkeit  von  dem  Vorsatz  ausgehen,  wortliche  Uebersetzung,  ebenso  wie 
Nachahmung  zu  vermeiden,  um  spiiter  einen  zwischen  Paraphrase  und 
Nachahmung  schwankenden  Weg  einzuschlagen."  John  Dryden's  Ueber- 
setzungen  aus  Theokrii,  Breslau,  1894,  p.  5. 

2  n,  42. 


126  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

himself  ou  any  vital  literary  problems.  As  to  the  war 
between  ancients  aud  moderns,  he  maintains  that  in  drama 
and  satire  the  moderns  have  excelled ;  Milton  is  searchingly 
criticized,  but  admired  for  his  elevated  thoughts  and  sound- 
ing words.  It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  this  essay 
as  a  whole  exhibits  more  keen  discrimination  than  real 
literary  enthusiasm. 

In  the  epistle  dedicatory  of  the  Examen  Poeticum  (1693) 
we  recognize  again  the  Dryden  of  the  first  and  third  periods. 
It  is  significant  that  the  immediate  occasion  for  the  greater 
part  of  this  essay  is  identical  with  that  which  we  noticed  in 
connection  with  the  Defense  of  the  Epilog.  In  1672, 
being  attacked  by  the  old-fashioned  devotees  of  the  Eliza- 
bethans, Dryden  replied  by  belittling  Shakespeare's  virtues 
and  enlarging  upon  his  faults:  in  1693,  under  exactly  the 
same  circumstances,  our  author  gracefully  acknowledges 
the  superiority  of  his  great  predecessors  and  challenges  the 
sincerity  of  his  critics.1  But,  recalling  in  this  the  spirit 
of  the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy,  he  will  defend  the  Euglish 
Drama  against  all  comers  :  again  the  English  genius  comes 
to  its  own  ;  again  Dryden  searches  for  words  with  which  to 
characterize  that  vital  thing  which  is  the  heart  of  English 
poetry.2     The  passages  in  question  are  distinguished  from 

1  ' "  Tis  not  with  an  ultimate  intention  to  pay  reverence  to  the  Manes  of 
Shakespeare,  Fletcher,  and  Ben  Jonson  that  they  commend  their  writings, 
hut  to  throw  dirt  on  the  writers  of  this  age.  .  . .  Peace  be  to  the  venerable 
shades  of  Shakespeare  and  Ben  Jonson  !  none  of  the  living  will  presume  to 
have  any  competition  with  them  ;  as  they  were  our  predecessors,  so  they 
were  our  masters."     n,  4-5. 

2  "As  little  can  I  grant,  that  the  French  dramatic  writers  excel  the  Eng- 
lish. Our  authors  as  far  surpass  them  in  genius,  as  our  soldiers  excel  theirs 
in  courage.  'Tis  true,  in  conduct  they  surpass  us  either  way  ;  yet  that 
proceeds  not  so  much  from  their  greater  knowledge,  as  from  the  difference 
in  tastes  in  the  two  nations.  They  content  themselves  with  a  thin  design, 
without  episodes,  and  managed  by  few  persons.  Our  audience  will  not  be 
pleased,  but  with  variety   of  accidents,    an  underplot,  and  many  actors. 


JOHN    DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  127 

our  author's  previous  expressions  ou  the  same  subject  only 
by  an  evident  desire  to  do  justice  both  to  the  faults  of  the 
English  and  the  virtues  of  the  French.  A  denunciation  of 
Homer's  "  ungodly  man-killers  "  (heroes)  and  a  tacit  com- 
mendation of  a  "  more  moderate  heroism  "  seem  to  indicate 
a  temperate,  Virgilian  state  of  mind.  But  if  this  essay  is 
milder  than  the  great  documents  of  our  author's  third 
period,  it  is  filled  with  the  same  fine  independence. 

Dryden's  next  piece  of  criticism,  the  famous  Parallel 
between  Poetry  and  Painting,  prefixed  to  a  translation  of 
Du  Fresnoy,  De  Arte  Graphica  (1695),  is  unique  among  his 
works  in  its  purpose  and  scope.  It  resembles  most  the 
preface  to  Troilus  and  Cressida  (1679),  but  in  the  actual 
nature  of  its  material  it  is  much  more  abstract.  Here 
Dryden  starts  out  with  the  set  purpose  of  laying  down  the 
rules  of  art  which  belong  to  poetry  and  painting  in  common. 
In  no  other  work  has  he  undertaken  a  task  so  entirely 
formal;  here,  then,  if  anywhere,  one  might  expect  a  cold 
outline  of  the  artist's  activities  approximating,  perhaps,  the 
good-sense  doctrine  of  the  fourth  period.  And  it  must  be 
confessed  that  in  its  general  tone  this  esssay  is  far  more 
rationalistic  than  the  one  which  preceded  it.  But,  neverthe^^ 
less,  a  close  reading  reveals  something  like  an  attempt  to 
harmonize  the  formal  conception  of  literature  with  the 
intuitions  of  a  genuinely  poetic  consciousness.  Naturally 
our  author  begins  the  systematic  part  of  his  treatise  with  a 
statement  of  rules  :  this  is  in  the  very  nature  of  the  case ; 
if  there  are  no  accepted  laws  applying  to  the  artist's 
methods,  then  no  such  treatise  as  this  can  be  written  at  all. 

They  follow  the  ancients  too  servilely  in  the  mechanic  rules,  and  we  assume 
too  much  licence  to  ourselves,  in  keeping  them  only  in  view  at  too  great 
a  distance.  But  if  our  audience  had  their  tastes,  our  poets  could  more 
easily  comply  with  them,  than  the  French  writers  could  come  up  to  the 
sublimity  of  our  thoughts,  or  to  the  difficult  variety  of  our  designs."    EC,  7. 


128  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

From  the  practise,  then,  of  "  the  poets  and  painters  in 
ancient  times  and  the  best  ages "  rules  have  been  drawn, 
and  these  are  to  furnish  the  basis  of  our  discussion.  Treat- 
ing the  steps  of  a  poet's  or  painter's  work  in  order,  Dryden 
begins  with  a  discussion  of  invention,  and  we  are  relieved 
to  read  :  "  Invention  is  the  first  part,  and  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  them  both ;  yet  no  rule  ever  was  or  ever  can  be 
given,  how  to  compass  it." 1  But  the  disposition,  or  arrange- 
ment, of  the  work  is  to  be  according  to  law.  Coming  to 
the  description  of  the  passions,  Dryden  again  admits  the 
inadequacy  of  rules :  "  This,  says  my  author,  is  the  gift 
of  Jupiter ;  and  to  speak  in  the  same  heathen  language,  we 
call  it  the  gift  of  our  Apollo — not  to  be  obtained  by  pains 
or  study,  if  we  are  not  born  to  it ;  for  the  motions  which  are 
studied  are  never  so  natural  as  those  which  break  out  in  the 
height  of  a  real  passion."2  When  he  comes  to  the  principles 
of  ornamentation  Dryden  finds  the  abstract  rule  too  much 
for  him  and,  with  evident  compunction,  admits  the  formal 
indefensibility  of  the  English  tragi-comedy.  One  remark 
on  the  cromatic,  or  coloring,  the  last  step  in  the  production 
of  an  art  work,  shows  again  that  Dryden  is  attempting  to 
maintain  an  esthetic  balance :  "A  work  may  be  overwrought 
as  well  as  underwrought ;  too  much  labor  often  takes  away 
the  spirit  by  adding  to  the  polishing,  so  that  there  remains 
nothing  but  a  dull  correctness,  a  piece  without  any  consider- 
able faults,  but  with  few  beauties ;  for  when  the  spirits  are 
drawn  off,  there  is  nothing  but  a  caput  mortuwm."  3  Taking 
into  account  such  passages  as  these  it  seems  to  me  that 
whereas  we  found  in  the  preface  to  Troilus  and  Cressida  a 
formal  treatment  of  the  rules  of  the  drama  with  here  and 
there  an  outbreak  of  romantic  feeling,  we  are  justified  in 
describing  the  Parallel  as  a  studied  attempt  to  harmonize 

ya}  138.  2n,  145.  3n,  152. 


JOHN   DRYDEN's    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  129 

the  formal,  practical,  working  conception  of  an  artist's  labors 
with  the  intuitions  of  a  poetic  appreciator  of  the  finished 
art-product.  Dry  den's  theory,  it  is  true,  is  inadequate  to 
his  purpose  ;  he  is  still  bound  by  the  principle  of  imitation 
and  the  allegorical  conception  of  art.  But  the  attempt  is 
none  the  less  evident :  an  inexplicable  genius  produces  the 
material,  and  the  judgment  disposes  it ;  genius  describes 
the  passions,  while  study  and  care  polish  the  language. 

The  dedication  with  which  Dryden  introduced  his  trans- 
lation of  the  Aeneid  (1697)  naturally  concerns  itself  with 
the  old  question  of  the  relative  advantages  of  drama  and 
epic  and  the  defense  and  praise  of  the  poetry  of  Virgil.  So  v 
it  happens,  as  has  been  the  case  with  more  than  one  of 
Dryden' s  essays,  that  the  really  significant  passages  of  this 
work  are  in  the  nature  of  digressions.  In  general  these  " 
significant  passages  are  pretty  much  of  a  piece  with  those 
which  we  examined  in  the  dedicatory  epistle  of  the  Examen 
Poeticum.  Their  chief  value  lies  iu  the  fact  that,  like  the  v 
epistle  of  1693,  they  exhibit  Dryden  expressing  with  his 
old-time  freedom  the  doctrines  of  his  earliest  period.  The 
figure  once  before  used  to  define  his  feeling  as  to  the  nature 
of  the  English  poetic  spirit  is  further  developed  :  "  For, 
impartially  speaking,  the  French  are  as  much  better  critics 
than  the  English,  as  they  are  worse  poets.  Thus  we 
generally  allow  that  they  better  understand  the  management 
of  a  war  than  our  islanders ;  but  we  know  we  are  superior 
to  them  in  the  day  of  battle.  They  value  themselves  on 
their  generals,  we  on  our  soldiers."  1  In  another  spirited 
passage  on  the  same  subject  he  characterizes  the  informing 
spirit  of  English  poetry  as  "a  masculine  vigor,"  recalling 
forcibly  his  earlier  expressions,  "masculine  fancy"  (1665), 
and  "genius  of  poetry  in  the  writing"  (1678).     Our  author 

ln,  178. 
9 


130  AVM.    E.    BOHN. 

has  consistently  maintained,  especially  in  the  Parallel,  that 
the  epic  is  farther  from  life  than  the  drama,  and  thus  better 
adapted  to  ornamentation  ;  but  now  he  demands,  even  in 
the  epic,  something  of  genuine  virility  and  passion.1 

It  is  in  the  preface  to  the  Fables  (1700),  Dryden's  last 
essay,  that  the  criticism  of  this  period  culminates.  Here, 
more  than  in  any  other  work  of  the  period,  we  get  warm, 
spontaneous  appreciation  unmixed  with  empty  formulas. 
Homer,  Chaucer,  Ovid,  and  Boccaccio  are  the  natural 
subjects  of  the  essay ;  but  it  is  the  first  two  that  call  forth 
the  best  passages.  Here  concludes,  so  far  as  Dryden  is 
concerned,  that  long  conflict  between  Homer  and  Virgil. 
The  result  is,  first  of  all,  an  attempt  to  estimate  the  virtues 
of  each  without  injustice  to  the  other.  But  one  cannot  help 
feeling  that,  as  Homer  was  Dryden's  favorite  in  youth,  so 
he  is  at  the  last.  In  fact  our  author  states  specifically  that 
he  has  found  Homer  more  according  to  his  genius  than  the 
Latin  poet.  And  in  passages  like  the  following  the  nature 
of  his  feeling  can  hardly  be  mistaken  :  "  The  action  of 
Homer,  being  more  full  of  vigor  than  that  of  Virgil,  accord- 
ing to  the  temper  of  the  writer,  is  of  a  consequence  more 
pleasing  to  the  reader.  One  warms  you  by  degrees ;  the 
other  sets  you  on  fire  all  at  once,  and  never  intermits  his 
heat.  'Tis  the  same  difference  which  Longinus  makes 
betwixt  the  effects  of  eloquence  in  Demosthenes  or  Tully ; 
one  persuades,  the  other  commands."  2     Comparing  Chaucer 


1  "Let  the  French  and  Italians  value  themselves  on  their  regularity; 
strength  and  elevation  are  our  standard.  I  said  before,  and  I  repeat  it,  that 
the  affected  purity  of  the  French  has  unsinewed  their  heroic  verse.  The 
language  of  an  epic  poem  is  almost  wholly  figurative  :  yet  they  are  so  fear- 
ful of  a  metaphor,  that  no  example  of  Virgil  can  encourage  them  to  be  bold 
with  safety.  Sure  they  might  warm  themselves  by  that  sprightly  blaze, 
without  approaching  it  so  close  as  to  singe  their  wings  ;  they  may  come  as 
near  it  as  their  master."     n,  229. 

2 II,  253. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S   LITERARY   CRITICISM.  131 

with  Ovid,  Dryden  conies  upon  the  subject  of  the  much 
admired  "  turn  of  words ; "  as  the  poet  of  Charles  II  he 
had  much  admired  this  taking  ornament,  but  in  his  present 
mood  he  sees  that  in  strong  passions  it  is  always  to  be 
shunned.  As  to  Chaucer  he  speaks  praise  which  can  only 
be  compared  with  his  eulogy  of  Shakespeare :  "  He  must 
have  been  a  man  of  most  wonderful  comprehensive  nature, 
because,  as  has  been  truly  observed  of  him,  he  has  taken 
into  the  compass  of  his  Canterbury  Tales  the  various  manners 
and  humors  (as  we  now  call  them)  of  the  whole  English 
nation,  in  his  age."  *  "  He  is  a  perpetual  fountain  of  good 
sense ;  learn'd  in  all  sciences ;  and,  therefore,  speaks  properly 
on  all  subjects."2  Even  the  verse  of  Chaucer,  the  meter 
of  which,  because  of  changes  in  pronunciation,  Dryden  was  t  ' 
quite  unable  to  appreciate,  seemed  to  him  to  have  the  "  rude 
sweetness  of  a  Scotch  tune  in  it."  Coming  at  a  time  when 
Chaucer  was  considered  "  a  dry  old-fashioned  wit," 3  the 
exclusive  property  of  "  some  old  Saxon  friends,"  this  frank 
and  hearty  appreciation  has  an  astonishingly  modern  ring. 
Here  is  a  poet  who  seems  to  lack  most  of  the  qualities  of 
form  which  have  sometimes  appeared  to  Dryden  as  the 
essentials  of  poetry  :  and  yet  he  is  praised  and  loved  for  the 
truth  of  nature  in  him  and  for  his  abundance  of  wit. 

This  preface,  written  only  a  few  months  before  Dryden' s 
death,  is,  from  nearly  every  point  of  view,  one  of  his  best 
critical  works.  There  is  little  theorizing  here,  to  be  sure, 
but  there  is  an  abundance  of  original  comparison  and  sincere 
appreciation.  And  the  favorites  of  our  author's  last  days 
are  Homer  and  Chaucer.  It  is  the  inner  spirit  of  poetry  i 
which  seems  now  to  attract  him,  rather  than  niceties  of 
versification.     It  is  noteworthy  that  the  material  which  he  " 

1  it,  262.  2  ii,  257.  3  ii,  264. 


132  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

is  treating  here  is  all  of  the  epic  kind  ;  and  it  has  been  for 
the  epic  that  he  has  heretofore  so  steadily  insisted  on  formal 
virtues. 

During  his  fifth  period  Dryden  has,  more  than  at  any 
other  time  of  his  life,  been  left  free  to  develop  his  per- 
sonality. Except  for  the  pressure  exerted  by  the  necessity 
of  writing  for  the  public,  he  has  been  at  liberty  to  choose 
his  form  of  activity  and  to  express  with  perfect  sincerity 
the  literary  tastes  which,  in  a  man  of  his  type,  naturally 
developed  under  favorable  influences.  Besides  being  free 
from  any  sort  of  restraint  Dryden  has  been  writing  during 
his  last  years  as  the  recognized  master  of  English  poetry ; 
this,  joined  perhaps,  with  the  fact  that  he  has  dealt  chiefly 
with  classical  material,  has  given  him  a  fine  dignity  of 
manner  and  catholic  breadth  of  feeling.  This,  then,  is  the 
Dryden  of  the  last  phase ;  and  the  criticism  we  have 
examined  is  just  what  one  would  expect  from  such  a  man. 
Of  the  five  critical  documents  of  the  period,  the  first,  we 
have  seen,  was  transitional :  the  other  four,  it  seems  to  me, 
are  related  in  spirit  and  material  to  the  essays  of  the  first 
and  third  periods.  In  one  respect  they  indicate  a  distinct 
advance  over  all  their  predecessors :  Dryden  has  gained  in 
judicial  poise,  and  logicality  of  thought ;  he  is  trying  to 
bring  together  his  instinctive  feelings  for  literature  and  his 
reasoned  theory.  This  very  effort,  to  be  sure,  savors  of  the 
eighteenth  century,  but  Dryden  has  not  again  struck  the 
dead-level  of  the  "  prose-critics."  He  has  still,  especially 
during  the  latter  part  of  the  period,  the  fine,  free  spirit  of 
the  Essay  of  Dramatic  Poesy  and  the  preface  to  All  for  Love. 
It  is  mellowed  a  bit  by  age,  and  there  is  not  now  so  much 
of  the  fire  of  conflict  in  it,  but  it  is  still  the  same  in  its 
nature. 


john  dryden's  literary  criticism.  133 

Conclusion. 

T. 

The  results  of  this  investigation  may  be  summed  up  in 
the  statement  that  Dryden's  critical  activity  was  an  orgauic 
part  of  his  life.  And  it  follows  as  a  corollary  of  this  state- 
ment that,  since  his  life,  because  of  its  intimate  connection 
with  the  vicissitudes  of  the  age,  divides  itself  into  periods, 
his  criticism,  together  with  his  entire  literary  activity,1  falls 
into  approximately  corresponding  periods.     During  the  first 

1  John  Stuart  Collins,  in  his  extremely  valuahle  work,  Di-yden's  Dramatic 
Theory  and  Praxis  (Leipzig,  1902),  makes  an  elaborate  comparison  of  Dry- 
den's critical  theory  as  set  forth  in  the  prefaces  and  his  practise  in  the 
plays.  The  prefaces,  especially  the  passages  dealing  with  rime,  the 
unities,  the  decorum  of  the  stage,  and  the  like,  he  examines  in  order,  and 
in  connection  with  each  tries  to  make  out  whether  the  theory  enunciated 
is  developed  in  the  accompanying  play  or  in  other  plays  of  the  same 
period.  His  general  conclusion  is  as  follows  :  "On  the  whole,  I  fail  to 
discover  any  such  intimate  connection  between  theory  and  praxis  in  Dry- 
den's dramatic  authorship  as  might  reasonably  be  expected.  Nowhere 
does  he  say  :  'thus  and  thus  shall  be  written'  and  then  follow  up  these 
exact  lines."  After  recognizing  a  distinct  connection  between  Dryden's 
theory  and  practise  during  the  heroic  period,  Mr.  Collins  proceeds.  "A 
comparison  of  such  statements  of  individual  opinion  as  are  to  be  found  in 
Dryden's  essays,  prefaces,  and  dedications  regarding  points  of  dramatic 
technic,  with  his  practise  in  dramatic  composition,  leads  to  the  discovery 
of  the  lack  of  any  exact  organic  connection  in  every  particular  between  the 
two  :  an  attempt  to  show  either  a  complete  reconciliation  between  theory 
and  praxis  or  a  complete  divergence  of  each  from  the  other  leads  to  no 
precise  results." 

The  obvious  comment  on  this  is  that  the  connection  which  was  sought  in 
certain  details  of  dramatic  theory  and  practise  might  have  been  found  in 
the  general  spirit  of  the  two.  Dryden  was  far  too  careless  a  play-wright 
to  work  out  every  detail  according  to  theory  :  but  the  essays  and  plays  of 
any  particular  period  were  acted  upon  by  the  same  general  influences,  were 
expressions  of  the  same  personality  at  a  particular  stage  of  its  develop- 
ment, and  one  would  expect  to  find  in  them  substantial  agreement  as  to 
mood  and  purpose. 


134  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

of  these  Dryden,  with  the  fine  enthusiasm  of  a  young  poet 
still  upon  him,  has  not  yet  settled  upon  a  literary  ideal,  has 
not  yet  submitted  himself  to  the  dominance  of  a  formal 
scheme  of  theory  ;  and  the  criticism  of  this  time  is  full  of 
genuine  appreciations  of  literature  and  remarkably  modern 
discussions  of  literary  problems.  The  second  period  exhibits 
a  striking  unity  of  development :  Dryden  becomes  the  great 
literary  favorite  of  the  court ;  in  his  serious  plays  he  furnishes 
precisely  the  heroic  literature  which  the  court  demands  ;  and 
in  his  criticism,  being  obliged  to  defend  this  literature,  he 
stretches  the  doctrines  of  neoclassicism  to  include  the  theory 
of  it,  and,  in  self-defense,  attacks  the  rival  drama  of  the 
great  Elizabethans.  During  the  third  period  our  author's 
central  motive  is  rebellion  against  all  that  he  has  lately 
believed  in  and  supported  :  attacked  by  numberless  foes,  he 
is  neglected,  if  not  actually  discountenanced  by  the  king ;  in 
his  serious  plays  he  discontinues  the  heroic  manner  for 
imitation  of  Shakespeare,  while  in  his  comedy  he  attacks  a 
notorious  court  vice ;  in  his  criticism  he  returns  to  the 
enthusiasms  of  his  first  period,  making  it  his  special  concern 
to  defend  real  poetry,  above  all  that  of  the  Elizabethans, 

/J  against  carping  fault-finders.  At  the  beginning  of  the  fourth 
period  Dryden  is  called  back,  in  time  of  need,  to  the  service 
of  the  court ;  but  now,  instead  of  being  expected  to  wTrite 
plays  for  the  royal  amusement,  he  is  set  to  produce  in  rapid 
succession,  pamphlets  and  satires  in  defense  of  his  master's 
cause  :  and  the  criticism  produced  during  this  period  is,  as 
one  might  expect,  meager  in  quantity,  and  as  to  its  spirit, 
coldly  rationalistic,  approximating  the  character  of  eighteenth 

i.  century  English  rationalism.  During  his  fifth  period  our 
author  gains  his  livelihood  chiefly  by  catering  to  the  con- 
stantly growing  literary  public,  and  thus  gains  moral  and 
intellectual  independence  ;  after  having  failed  at  play- writing 
he  gives  almost  undivided  attention  to  his  translations  :    his 


JOHN   DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  135 

time  and  energy  being  now  entirely  taken  np  by  purely 
literary  labors,  his  critical  dissertations,  some  of  them  long 
and  carefully  worked  out,  gradually  increase  in  spirit  and 
originality  till  they  resemble  those  of  the  first  and  third 
periods ;  they  differentiate  themselves  from  these  by  an 
evenness  of  tone  and  a  certainty  of  grasp,  and,  more 
especially,  by  an  evident  attempt  on  Dry  den's  part  to 
harmonize  his  instinctive  feelings  toward  literature  with  his 
reasoned  judgments. 


II. 


• 


I  have  not  been  able  to  discover  a  clean-cut,  logical 
development  either  in  Dryden's  critical  methods  or  in  his 
formal  literary  creed.  In  1665,  when  he  wrote  the  Essay  v 
of  Dramatic  Poesy,  he  seems  to  have  been  master  of  all  the 
critical  tools  which  he  was  to  use  during  his  long  and  active 
career.  He  never  formally  adopted  and  defended  the 
doctrines  of  any  critical  school.  The  periods  in  his  critical 
evolution  which  I  have  attempted  to  define  are,  at  least  in 
chief  part,  the  results  of  his  adaptation  to  changing  condi- 
tions. But  these  changing  conditions  did  not  impose  upon 
him  a  profession  of  faith  in  abstract  principles.  Each  new 
environment  called  for  defense  of,  or  opposition  to,  certain 
literary  men  or  literary  types ;  and  though  the  development 
of  critical  theory  is  of  the  utmost  importance  to  the  student 
of  esthetics,  it  made  little  difference  to  Dryden,  or  to  those 
whom  he  tried  to  please,  just  how  he  went  about  his  task. 
Therefore  4t —is-  his  literary  allegiances,  rather  than  his  '' 
literary  methods  or  theories,  which  divide  our  author's 
criticism  into  periods. 

In  stating  that  abstract  theories  did  not  furnish  the  points 
of  departure  for  Dryden's  critical  development  I  do  not 
wish    to    imply  that  the  periods  of  this  development  are 


136  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

formally  indistinguishable.  With  our  author's  changiug 
environment  and  the  consequent  variation  in  his  literary 
motives  and  purposes  there  naturally  went  alterations  in 

irit  more  or  less  clearly  mirrored  in  his  formal  critical 
theory.    Before  attempting  formally  to  characterize  Dryden's 

itical  periods  it  w.ill,  be  necessary  to  make  a  classification 
of  critical  methods.  The  history  of  criticism  may  be  roughly 
represented  as  a  long  conflict  between  two  parties :  on  the 
\  one  side  are  those  who  insist  on  understanding  what  they 
enjoy,  or,  as  it  has  often  worked  out  in  practice,  enjoying 
only  what  they  understand;  on  the  other  are  those  who 
allow  full  play  to  their  instinctive  feelings,  either  makiug  no 
inquiry  for  systematic  explanations,  or,  when  these  are  given, 
attempting  to  bend  them  to  the  task  of  justifying  the 
pleasurable  emotion  already  experienced.  These  parties 
2  represent  two  opposite  types  of  mind — the  rationalistic  and 
the  romantic. 

In  Dryden's  time  the  rationalists  were,  as  has  been  re- 
marked above,  of  two  sorts  :  on  the  one  hand  were  those  of 
the  French  school,  usually  called  neoclassicists,  rationalizing 
literature  by  creating  it  in  accordance  with  logical  princi- 
i>!es;  on  the  other  were  the  representatives  of  the  English 
school  achieving  much  the  same  result  by  holding  literature 
v  down  to  the  good-sense   standards  of  ordinary  life.1      The 

il  romanticist,  of  course,  has  no  critical  method ;  absence 
of  method  is  the  very  essence  of  his  way  of  looking  at  art. 
When  he  begins  to  account  for  the  charm  of  romantic  litera- 
ture, as  did  the  critics  of  the  nineteenth  century,  he  develops 
in  the  direction  of  a  larger  rationalism.  A  really  romantic 
critic,  in  the  sense  in  which  I  am  using  the  term,  is  not 
merely  one  who  defends  romantic  literature — the  most  cold- 
blooded modern  rationalist  can  do  that — but  one  who  defends 

1  Cf.  ante,  p.  117,  note. 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S    LITERARY    CRITICISM.  137 

it,  as  Matthew  Arnold  so  often  did,  by  an  immediate  appeal 
to  the  emotions. 

Looking  back  on  the  long  struggle  between  romanticism 
and  rationalism,  we  usually  give  our  sympathy  to  the 
former,  while  we  visit  with  something  like  scorn  the  dog- 
matic blindness  of  the  latter.  And  it  must  be  confessed  ¥ 
that,  judged  by  the  standards  of  our  taste,  the  rationalist  of 
the  past  has  usually  been  in  the  wrong  :  he  has  habitually 
supposed  his  analysis  complete  when,  perhaps,  the  very 
heart  of  the  matter  has  escaped  him.  But  although  the 
rationalist  of  outlived  periods  loses  nearly  all  the  cases 
which  he  pleads  before  the  jury  of  modern  opinion,  it  is 
true,  nevertheless,  that  in  one  sense  the  history  of  criticism 
exhibits  him  in  the  character  of  victor.  His  analyses  have 
never  been  complete;  he  has  never  been  able,  either  to 
justify  the  literature  which  instinct  has  recognized  as  great 
or  to  outline  a  successful  theory  for  the  production  of  such 
literature.  But,  from  age  to  age,  his  critical  scheme  of 
things  has  widened  tremendously.  The  very  attacks  of  the 
romanticists  have  forced  upon  him  doctrines  which  have 
permitted  the  formal  recognition  of  the  romantic  types  of 
literature.  The  majority  of  modern  critics,  pouring  out  the  " 
vials  of  their  wrath  upon  seventeenth  century  rationalists, 
are  merely  later  rationalists  with  a  widened  scheme  of 
esthetic  theory. 

It  is  true  that  during  the  seventeenth  century  the 
rationalistic  creed  seemed  to  be  narrowing  itself  down, 
crystalizing  itself.  Just  at  this  time,  nevertheless,  men 
like  Dryden,  largely  romantic  in  their  temperament,  were 
attempting  to  force  upon  it  the  historical  manner  of  looking 
at  literature.1  In  one  sense  the  historical  method  com-  ' 
bines,  and  mediates  between,  rationalism  and  romanticism: 

1  Cf.  p.  74,  note  2. 


J 8  WM.    E.    BOHN. 

attempts,  by  historical  analysis,  to  explain  all  types  and 
view-points.  But  in  another  sense  it  is  merely  a  rationalism 
ioade  broad  enough  to  include  everything  else  ;  its  attempt  is 
always  to  make  intelligible  the  creation  and  character  of 
works  of  art. 

In  attempting  to  give  formal  characterization  to  the  periods 

f  Dryden's  critical  development  we  should  bear  in  mind 
these  four  methods  of  criticism,  with  the  definitions  which 
ive  been  given  to  them  :  the  romantic,  the  French  rational- 
istic, or  neoclassic,  the  English  rationalistic,  and  the 
/  historical.  One  should  also  remember  that  Dryden's  transi- 
tions were  not  conscious  and  formal,  that  he  was  always  bent 
on  vindicating  his  man,  his  poem,  his  type  of  literature,  never 
on  exhibiting  a  method  of  criticism.  With  the  reservations 
which  these  statements  imply  the  following  generalizations 
are  approximately  accurate.  During  his  first  period  Dryden 
used  practically  all  four  of  the  methods  which  have  been 
defined  above  ;  but  the  period  is  given  its  prevailing  character 
by  the  fact  that  the  English  rationalistic  way  of  looking  at 
literature  played  a  decidedly  subordinate  part,  and  that  the 
romantic  method  stood  out  prominently  above  the  others.  The 
cond  period  was  characterized  by  a  kind  of  pseudo-neo- 
A  issicism — a  classicism  stretched  and  perverted  into  a  defense 
of  the  English  heroic  play.  It  was  in  the  third  period  that 
the  romantic  method  came  to  its  own  :  this  is  the  only  stage 

m  the  evolution  of  Dryden's  theory  at  which  the  rationalistic 

;»irit  approached  the  vanishing  point.     The  fourth  period 
longed  entirely  to  the  rationalistic  mood ;  and,  though  the 

''.stiuction  is  sometimes  difficult  to  make,  it  seems  to  me 
that  it  was  English  rationalism,  rather  than  French,  which 
dominated  during  this  time.  The  fifth  period  resembles,  in 
•■>  limited  sense,  the  first :  in  both  of  them  we  have  all  of 
■  >ryden's  methods  and  theories  side  by  side.  The  difference 
between  the  two  lies  in  the  fact  that  whereas  in  the  first 


JOHN    DRYDEN'S   LITERARY   CRITICISM.  139 

period  all  of  these  methods  and  theories  flourished  simulta- 
neously without  any  attempt,  on  Dryden's  part,  at  a  logical 
coordination,  during  the  last,  our  author,  with  the  spirit  of 
the  rationalist  still  strong  upon  him,  toned  them  all  down 
and  attempted  to  bring  them  into  harmony.  Nevertheless 
the  last  period  was  marked,  especially  toward  the  end,  by  a 
decided  dominance  of  the  romantic  manner.  The  historical 
method  was  not  especially  characteristic  of  any  period  :  it 
was  conspicuous  at  all  the  stages  of  Dryden's  development 
except  the  fourth,  the  rationalistic  stage. 

Wm.  E.  Bohn. 
UNIV1 

OF 


• 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

RENEWALS  ONLY — TEL.  NO.  642-3405 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below,  or 

on  the  date  to  which  renewed. 

Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


ja>ivfia-w^ 


m  9  6 


REC'D  LD  OCT  1 


7  72  -Q  AM  4  2 


LD  21A-40m-2,'69 
(J6057sl0)476 — A-32 


General  Library 

University  of  California 

Berkeley 


/'< 


••""V 


